^RY  OF  PW/VCfJgN, 


BV  629  .1523  1844 
Bullions,  Alexander, 
defendant 
In  chancery 


i^i^^-pu^J-tt  d-^^   ^-'^ux^Hyh^  <jpo^^u, . 


IN  CHANCERY 


BEFORE  THE  CHANCELLOR  OF  THE  STATE  OF 


Ktto  Ib^otlfe* 


WILLIAM  STEVENSON  and  others,  Com^lainanu. 

l^        vs. 
ALEXANDER  BULLIONS  and  others,  Defendants. 


PLEADINGS  AND  PROOFS. 


JOHN  CRARY,  Solicitor  for  Complainants. 
BERNARD  BLAIR,  Solicitor  for  Defendants. 


SALEM: 

PRINTED  BY  WILLIABI  B.   lUBKNESS. 

1844. 


IN    CHANCERY, 

BEFOEE  THE 


CHANCELLO  R^  1, 


William  Stevenson,  William  Robektson,  William 
McGeoch,Edwaed  Small,  John  McAkthur,  James 
McAkthur,  Egbert  McArtiiur,  Peter  McArthur, 
George  Small,  John  Arnot,  James  Arnot,  Edward 
Cook,  John  Robertson,  Thomas  McMorris,  James 
Hoy,  John  McDoul,  Isaac  Ashton,  John  Foster 
and  William  Livingston,  Members  of  the  Church 
in  full  communion,  known  as  the  Associate  Con- 
gregation of  Cambridge,  in  the  County  of  Wash- 
ington, in  the  State  of  New  York,  adhering  to  the 
principles  of  the  Associate  Presbytery  of  Pennsyl- 
vania, formerly,  now  the  Associate  Synod  of  North 
America,  Complainants, 
vs, 

Alexander  Bullions,  James  Coulter,  Jabtes  Shi- 
land,  Robert  McClelland,  Peter  Hill,  and  the 
Associate  Congregation  of  Cambridge,  of  the 
County  of  Washington,  adhering  to  the  Associate 
Presbytery  of  Pennsylvania,  formerly,  now  the 
Associate  Synod  of  North  America,  Defendants. 


.AA.i  'ii>  <6t^■A^ 


,L 


P": 


Original 
DHL 


IN   CHANCERY: 
To  the  Chancellor  of  the  Slate  of  J\'ew  York, 

Humbly  complaining,  your  Orators,  William  Stevenson,  William  Rob- 
ertson, William  McGeoch,  Edward  Small,  John  McArthur,  James  McAr- 
thur, Eobert  McArthur,  Peter  McArthur,  George  Small,  James  Arnot, 
John  Arnot,  Edward  Cook,  John  Robertson,  Thomas  McMorris,  James 
Hoy,  John  McDoul,  Isaac  Ashton,  John  Foster,  and  William  Livingston, 
members  of  the  Church,  known  as  the  Associate  Congregation  of  Cam- 
bridge, of  the  County  of  Washington,  in  the  State  of  New  York,  adher- 
ing to  the  principles  of  the  Associate  Presbytery  of  Pennsylvania,  for- 
merly, now,  the  Associate  Synod  of  North  America,  for  themselves  and 
all  other  members  of  the  said  Church  and  Congregation  who  adhere  to 
the  standards  thereof,  respectfully  shew  unto  your  Honor : 

That  in  or  about  the  year  1754,  as  your  orators  are  informed  and  be- 


lievc,  the  sect  or  denomination  of  Christians,  knoAvn  in  common  parlance 
as  the  Associate  Churcli  of  North  America,  hut  wiiich  is  now  styled  and 
called  in  tiie  minutes  and  records  of  the  proceedings  of  said  Church, 
"  the  Associate  Synod  of  Nortli  America,"  was  in  all  due  form  organized 
as  a  Church  in  the  then  Province  of  Pennsylvania,  under  the  inspection, 
superintendence  and  care  of  the  Associate  Synod  of  Scotland,  and  the 
several  Congregations  of  said  Church,  at  or  about  the  same  time,  hy  the 
authority  of  said  Synod,  constituted  and  organized  a  Presbytery  which 
was  styled,  "  The  Associate  Presbytery  of  Pennsylvania,"  and  which  was 
then  subordinate  to  the  said  Associate  Synod  of  Scotland. 

And  your  Orators  further  shew  that  in  or  about  the  year  1784,  sundry 
individuals,  of  the  town  of  Cambridge,  and  other  adjacent  towns  in  the 
State  of  New  York,  professing  the  tenets,  principles  and  faith  of  the  said 
Associate  Church,  petitioned  the  Associate  Presbytery  of  Pennsylvania, 
•'  praying  said  Presbytery  to  send  one  of  their  number  to  dispense  di- 
vine ordinances  to  and  among  said  petitioners,  according  to  the  received 
principles  of  the  said  Presbytery" — and  in  or  about  the  latter  part  of  the 
said  year,  17S4,  in  compliance  with  the  prayer  of  said  petition,  the  Rev. 
Thomas  Beveredge  was  sent  by  the  said  Presbytery  to  the  said  Petition- 
ers, at  said  Cambridge — and  in  the  early  part  of  the  year  1785,  a  Con- 
gregation was  duly  organized  as  a  local  Church  in  said  town  of  Cam- 
bridge, under  and  subordinate  to  the  said  Associate  Presbytery,  accord- 
ing to  the  principles  of  said  Presbytery,  and  subject  to  the  discipline  and 
government  thereof — ^which  said  Congregation  was  called  and  known  by 
the  name  and  style  of  "  The  Associate  Congregation  of  Cambridge,  ad- 
hering to  the  Associate  Presbytery  of  Pennsylvania."  The  term  "  Cott' 
gregation'^  as  used  in  the  said  Associate  Church,  means  a  local  Church 
comprising  the  persons  M^ho  are  members  thereof  in  full  communion,  with- 
in a  particular  territory,  convenient  for  their  assembling  and  attending 
upon  Divine  Worship. 

And  your  Orators  further  shew  that  in  or  about  the  year  1802,  the  Con- 
gregations of  the  said  Associate  Church,  adhering  and  subordinate  to  the 
said  Associate  Presbyterj",  having  greatly  increased,  said  Associate  Pres- 
bytery of  Pennsylvania  was  divided  into  several  separate  Presbyteries — 
that  is  to  say — The  Associate  Presbytery  of  Cambridge,  the  Associate 
Presbytery  of  Philadelphia,  the  Associate  Presbytery  of  Chartiers,  and 
the  Associate  Presbytery  of  Kentucky ;  the  name  of  which  last  mention- 
ed Presbytery  has  since  been  changed  to  that  of  Miami.  To  which  there 
have  been  since  added  at  different  times,  the  Associate  Presbyteries  of 
the  Carolinas,  Ohio,  Alleghany,  Muskingam,  Albany,  Chenango,  Stam- 
ford, Indiana,  Illinois,  Richland  and  Vermont,  being  in  all,  (at  the  pres- 
ent time,)  fifteen.  And  all  political  ties  and  connexions  between  this 
country  and  the  Kingdom  of  Great  Britain  having  been  severed,  it  was 
deemed  both  expedient  and  necessary  to  establish  a  visible  head  of  said 
Church  in  North  America,  and  accordingly,  at  or  about  the  same  time,  a 
Synod  was  duly  constituted  and  organized  by  said  Associate  Church,  as 
the  visible  head  and  Supreme  Judicatory  of  said  Church  in  North  Amer- 
ica, and  to  which  all  the  Presbyteries  and  Congregations  of  said  Associ- 
ate Church  were  and  are  subordinate  and  subject,  and  owe  obedience  and 
submission  according  to  the  principles,  discipline  and  government  of  the 
said  Associate  Church — which  said  Synod  was  and  is  called  and  known 
by  the  name  and  style  of  the  "  Associate  Synod  of  North  America." 

And  your  Orators  further  shew  that  at  the  meeting  of  the  said  Synod 


of  North  America,  in  May,  in  the  year  1838,  the  Rev.  Thomas  Good- 
willie  and  the  Rev.  William  Pringle,  who  respectively  had  charge  of 
Congregations  in  the  State  of  Vermont,  as  ministers  and  pastors,  were 
regulary  constituted  and  organized  by  said  Synod  into  a  separate  Presby- 
tery, called  the  Associate  Presbytery  of  Vermont — but  previous  to  that 
time,  said  ministers  and  said  Congregations  belonged  to  and  formed  a 
part  of  said  Associate  Presbytery  of  Cambridge. 

And  your  Orators  further  shew  that  the  said  Associate  Congregation  of 
Cambridge  has  belonged  to,  and  formed  a  part  of  said  Associate  Presby- 
tery of  Cambridge,  ever  since  its  organization,  and  still  does  belong  there- 
to and  form  a  part  thereof. 

And  your  Orators  further  shew  that  the  Judicatories  established  by  said 
Church  for  the  proper  discipline  and  good  government  thereof,  and  of  all 
its  Congregations,  members  and  officers,  are  Sessions,  Presbyteries,  and 
a  Synod.  That  said  Judicatories  were  established  at  an  early  period  of 
the  history  of  said  Church  in  Scotland,  and  were  adopted  by  said  Asso- 
ciate Church  in  America,  upon  its  organization  in  Pennsylvania,  as  here- 
in before  stated. 

A  Session  consists  of  the  minister,  or  ministers  (where  there  are  more 
than  one,)  and  the  ruling  elders  of  a  particular  Congregation.  A  Ses- 
sion has  the  general  superintendence,  control,  and  government  of  the 
Congregation — admits  persons  to  the  communion",  with  poAver  to  call  be- 
fore them,  and  proceed  against  offending  members,  and  to  punish  by  the 
censures  of  the  said  Church,  as  the  case  may  require — but  a  session  has 
no  authority  to  try,  or  otherwise  deal  with  its  minister. 

Any  persons  feeling  aggrieved  by  the  sentence  of  a  session,  may  ap- 
peal to  the  Presbytery  of  Avhich  the  said  session  is  a  member. 

A  Presbytery  consists  of  all  the  ministers,  and  one  ruling  elder  from 
each  settled  or  organized  Congregation  within  a  particular  district,  and 
has  due  and  ample  ecclesiastical  cognizance  of  all  things  that  regard  the 
welfare  of  the  particular  Congregations  or  Churches  within  its  bounds — 
of  receiving  and  issuing  appeals  from  the  several  sessions  within  its 
bounds,  and  of  hearing  and  determining  the  same — of  ordaining,  settling 
and  removing  ministers  within  its  bounds  or  jurisdiction — of  trying  all 
ministers  belonging  to  said  Presbytery  when  accused,  and  of  acquitting 
or  convicting  as  the  case  may  require — and  if  convicted,  of  punishing  by 
suspension,  deposition,  and  excommunication,  or  other  censures  of  said 
Church — of  visiting  the  Congregations  within  their  bounds,  to  inquire 
into  their  state,  to  redress  any  evils  that  may  have  arisen  within  them, 
and  generally,  of  ordering  whatever  pertains  to  the  good  government  of 
that  part  of  the  Church  which  is  under  their  immediate  inspection. 

Any  party  feeling  aggrieved  by  any  sentence  or  decision  of  a  Presbyte- 
ry, may  appeal  to  the  Synod. 

The  Synod  is  the  Supreme  Judicatory  of  the  Church.  It  is  composed 
of  all  the  ministers  in  the  several  Presbyteries  of  said  Associate  Church, 
under  the  inspection  of  the  Synod,  or  of  delegations  of  ministers  from 
said  Presbyteries,  together  with  the  ruling  elders  from  said  Presbyteries, 

The  Synod  has  poAver  to  hear,  and  finally  determine,  all  appeals  regu- 
larly brought  from  any  Presbytery,  to  decide  on  all  references  made  to  it 
— to  review  the  records  and  proceedings  of  the  Presbyteries — to  redress 
whatsoever  is  done  contrary  to  order — and  of  reproving,  warning,  and 
hearing  testimony  against  all  error  in  doctrine  or  immorality  in  practice, 
in  any  Presbytery,  or  in  any  Congregation  or  Church — of  erecting  new 
Presbyteries  when  the  Synod  may  deem  it  necessary. 


6 

The  Associate  Synod  of  Nortli  America  is  the  Supreme  Judicatory  of 
the  said  Associate  Church  in  North  America  j  and  its  decisions  arc  final, 
and  by  tlic  faith  and  doctrine  of  said  Clmrch,  obligatory  upon  all  the  ju- 
dicatories, officers,  members  and  Cong-regations  of  said  Church. 

And  3'our  Orators  fmllicr  she\v  that  there  are  Iavo  sentences  of  excom- 
munication used  by  the  Judicatories  of  tlie  said  Associate  Church  for  tlic 
discipline  thereof — one  of  wliich  is  called  the  higher  sentence,  and  the 
other  the  lesser  sentence  of  excommunication.  The  former  severs  all 
ties  and  connection  between  the  Church  and  the  oflonding  member, 
while  the  latter,  although  it  suspends  and  cuts  off  the  oflcnding  member 
from  all  rights,  privileges  and  immunities  as  a  member  of  the  Church, 
until  it  is  revoked,  yet  the  Church  continues  the  power  of  remonstrating, 
laboring  and  dealing  with  the  offending  member,  for  the  purpose  of  bring- 
ing him  to  repentance  and  a  return  to  his  duty  as  a  member  of  said 
Church,  and  not  till  all  discipline,  labor  and  remonstrance  are  found  to  be 
in  vain,  is  the  higher  sentence  of  excommunication  inflicted. 

And  your  Orators  further  shew,  that  in  or  about  the  year  1784,  the 
said  Associate  Church  of  North  America,  throuc"h  the  said  Associate 
Presb3nery  of  Pennsylvania,  adopted  and  publisjicd  a  particular  state- 
ment of  their  principles  in  a  book  commonly  called  and  known  as  *'  the 
declaration  and  testimony  of  the  Associate  Church  of  North  America." 
These  principles  require  every  member  admitted  to  communion  in  said 
Associate  Church,  solemnly  to  declare  and  profess  his  or  her  adherence 
to  the  Westminster  confession  of  faith,  the  larger  and  shorter  Cate- 
chisms, form  of  Presbyterian  Church  government  and  directory  for  the 
public  worship  of  God,  as  expounded,  received  and  Avitnessed  for  in  the 
said  declaration  and  testimony  of  the  said  Associate  Church,  and  to  de- 
clare and  profess  their  approbation  of  said  declaration  and  testimony,  and 
to  declare  their  solemn  and  fixed  promise  and  resolution,  through  grace, 
to  continue  in  the  faith  as  exhibited  and  declared  in  said  standard,  and  to 
be  subject  to  the  order  and  discipline  of  said  Church — and  every  officer, 
whether  ruling  elder  or  minister,  is  required  by  his  ordination  vows  to  sub- 
mit himself  vrillinglj'  and  humbly  to  the  Church  Courts  of  said  Associ- 
ate Church,  to  endeavor  to  maintain  the  spiritual  imity  and  peace  of  said 
Church,  to  continue  steadfast  in  the  principles  professed  by  the  said  As- 
sociate Church,  and  carefully  to  avoid  every  divisive  course.  Everj'  ru- 
ling elder  promises  in  his  vows,  submission  in  the  Lord  to  his  session  ; 
and  every  minister  to  his  Presbjtery,  as  subordinate  to  the  Associate  Sy- 
nod of  North  America. 

And  your  Orators  further  shew,  that  the  principles  thus  adopted,  estab- 
lished, ipublished  and  promulgated  by  said  Associate  Church,  have  ever 
been  and  still  are  the  principles  of  the  faith  and  practice,  discipline  and 
government  of  the  said  Associate  Cliurch,  and  are  obligatory  upon  every 
officer,  and  member  thereof. 

And  your  Orators  further  shew,  that  although  the  said  Associate  Con- 
gregation of  Cambridge  have  always,  since  their  first  organization  in  1785, 
as  herein  before  mentioned,  been  in  all  respects  duly  organized  as  a  Con- 
gregation or  Church,  3-ct  they  were  not  incorporated  until  the  year  182G. 
That  as  well  before  as  since  the  incorporation  thereof,  the  temporalities 
of  the  said  Congregation,  and  of  all  other  Congregations  of  said  Associ- 
ate Church,  were  committed  to  the  custody  and  care  of  Trustees,  elected 
by  the  members  of  the  said  Congregation  in  full  communion,  from  among 
themselves. 

That  subsequent  to  the  said  first  organization  of  the  said  Associate 


Congregation  of  Cambridge,  and  prior  to  the  year  1838,  the  said  Congre- 
gation acquired  by  donations  and  subscriptions,  from  among  themselves 
and  otherwise,  tlie   following  real  property  and  estate,   that  is  to  say,  on 
or  about  the  7th  day  of  July,  1786,   Jonathan  French,  then  of  the  town 
of  Cambridge,  by  deed   of  that   date   between  himself,  as  party  of  the 
first  part,  and  John  Blair,  James  Small,  James  Eddie,  James  Irvine,  Wil- 
liam McAuley,  David  French   and  George  Miller,   chosen   and   elected 
Trustees  for  the  Associate  Congregation  of  Cambridge,  adhering  to  the 
Associate  Presbytery   of  Pennsylvania  of  the  second  part,  in  considera- 
tion of  six  poiinds,   conveyed   to  the   said  party   of  the  second  part  and 
their   successors  forever,   one  half  acre  of  land,  situate  in  said   town  of 
Cambridge,    on  the  south  part   of  lot  number  thirty-two  of  the  first  divi- 
sion, which  piece  of  land  is  particularly  described  in  said  deed  by  meets 
and  bounds  and  courses  and  distances,  habendum  to  the  said  party  of  the 
second  part  and  to  their   successors  for  ever  to  the   sole  and  only  proper 
use,  benefit  and  behoof  of  the  said  Associate  Congregation  of  Cambridge, 
with  full  covenants,    among  which   is  a  covenant   for  such  further  assu- 
rance, as  may  be  deemed  necessary  to  vest  said  piece  or  parcel  of  land 
in  the  said  party  of  the  second  part  and  their  successors  for  the  sole  use 
of  the  said  Associate  Congregation   of  Cambridge,  which  said  deed  not 
having  been  executed  by  the  wife  of  the  said  grantor,  and  it  being  suppo- 
cd  that  there  were  some   other   defects   therein,  and  the  said  Associate 
Presbytery  of  Pennsylvania  having  been  divided  into  several  Presbyter- 
ies, and  the  Associate  Spiod  of  North  America  having  been  established, 
as  herein  before  mentioned,  the  said  Jonathan  French  and  Jane  his  wife, 
by  the   covenant   of   all    the    grantees  in  said   deed,  on  or   about  the 
twenty-first    day   of  January,    1810,  by  a  certain   indenture  or  deed  of 
confirmation  of  that   date,  made   between   himself  and  his  said  wife,  of 
the  first  part  and   James  Small,  James  Eddie,  James  Irwin,  Alexander 
Skellie,  senior,  James  Hoy,  James  EoUe,  William  Stevenson,  John  Eo- 
bertson,  Samuel  Green,  Alexander  Skellie,  junior,  John  Shiland,  junior,, 
James  Hill,  Alexander  Livingston  and  William  McGeoch,  of  said  town  of 
.Cambridge,  Trustees   for  the  Associate    Congregation  of  Cambridge,  in 
accession  to  the  principles  presently  maintained  by  the  Associate  Synod 
of  North  America,  and  now  under  the  inspection  of  the  Associate  Pres- 
bytery of  Cambridge,  belonging  to  the  said  Sjaiod,  and   whereof  the  Re- 
verend Alexander  Bullions  is  the  present   Pastor,   parties  of  the  second 
part  reciting  the  said  last  mentioned  conveyance  from  the  said  Jonathan 
French,  and  that  the   Associate   Congregation  was  not  incorporated,  and 
that  the  said  Associate    Congregation  had  elected  the  said  parties  of  the 
second  part  Trustees   thereof  for  the  purpose   of  managing  and  taking 
care   of  the   temporalities    of    said  Associate   Congregation,   and  that 
doubts  had  arisen  whether  the  title  to  said  premises  was  completely  vest- 
ed in  the  members   who   then  were,  or  thereafter  might  be  in  full  com- 
munion with,  and  compose  the  said  Congregation,  and  in  such  persons  as 
they  then  had  elected  and  chosen,   or   at  any  time   hereafter  might  elect 
and  choose  from  among  themselves  as  Trustees  to  manage  and  take  the 
charge  and  care  of  the  temporalities  of  the  said  Congregation  and  their 
successors  in  ofiice  of  Trustees,  and  that  the  said  grantor  was  willing  to 
remove  all  such   doubts,   and  to   confii-m  and   secure  the  title  to  the  said 
premises  in  and  to  the  members  who  then  were  or  thereafter  might  be  in 
full  communion  with,  and  should  compose  the  said  Congregatiou,  and  in 
and  to  such  pcrcions  as  they  then  had  elected,  or  at  any  time  thereafter 


8 

might  elect  and  choose  from  among  themselves  as  Trustees  to  take  the 
charge  and  care  of  the  temporalities  of  said  Congregation  and  their  suc- 
cessors in  the  oiKcc  of  Trustees  to  be  elected  and  chosen  as  aforesaid  for 
ever  thereafter.  In  consideration  for  the  better  acting  and  confirming  the 
title  aforesaid,  and  also  in  consideration  of  one  dollar,  did  grant,  bargain, 
sell,  remise,  release  and  confirm  to  the  said  parties  of  the  second  part 
their  heirs  and  assigns  the  said  before  mentioned  premises. 

Habendum  to  the  said  parties  of  the  second  part,  their  lieirs  and  assigns, 
for  ever  to  the  intent  for  the  use  and  in  trust  for  the  members  who  then 
were  or  thereafter  might  be  in  full  communion  with,  and  should  compose 
the  said  Associate  Congregation  of  Cambridge  in  accession  to  the  prin- 
ciples then  presently  maintained  by  the  Associate  Synod  of  North  Ame- 
rica, and  then  under  the  inspection  of  the  Associate  Presbytery  of  Cam- 
bridge, belonging  to  said  Synod,  and  for  such  persons  as  the  said  mem- 
bers at  any  time  thereafter  might  elect  and  choose  from  among  them- 
selves as  Trustees  and  their  successors  in  office  to  be  elected  and  chosen 
as  aforesaid. 

And  on  or  about  the  24th  day  of  December,  in  the  year  1799,  James 
Gilmore,  then  of  the  said  town  of  Cambridge,  by  deed  of  that  date  be- 
tween himself  as  party  of  the  fu"st  part,  and  Alexander  Skellie,  senr., 
James  Irvine,  James  Hoy,  James  Rolle,  Samuel  Green,  William  Steven- 
son and  Robert  Cumming,  Trustees  for  the  Associate-  Congregation  of 
Cambridge,  aforesaid,  and  their  successors  in  accession  to  the  principles 
presently  maintained  by  the  Associate  Presbytery  of  Pennsylvania,  and 
now  under  the  inspection  of  said  Presbytery,  of  the  second  part,  in  con- 
sideration of  twenty-eight  pounds,  conveyed  to  the  said  party  of  the  sec- 
ond part  and  to  their  successors  forever,  half  an  acre  of  land  situate  in 
said  town  of  Cambridge,  being  part  of  lot  number  thirty-one  of  the  first 
division  of  Cambridge  IPatent — which  said  piece  of  land  is  particularly 
described  in  said  deed  by  meets  and  bounds  and  courses  and  distances. 
Habendum  to  the  said  party  of  the  second  part  and  their  successors  for 
the  proper  use,  benefit  and  behoof  of  the  said  Associate  Congregation 
of  Cambridge  forever. 

And  on  or  about  the  23d  day  of  October,  in  the  year  1827,  Alexander 
Bullions,  then  of  the  said  tovm  of  Cambridge,  together  with  Mary  his 
wife,  by  deed  of  that  date,  between  them  as  parties  of  the  first  part,  and 
Francis  McLean,  William  Stevenson,  William  McGeoch,  Edward  Small, 
John  Robertson,  Tanner,  and  George  Lourie,  Trustees  of  the  Associate 
Congregation  of  Cambridge  of  the  county  of  Washington  and  State  of 
New-York,  adhering  to  the  principles  of  the  Associate  Presbytery  of 
Pennsylvania  formerly,  now  the  Associate  Synod  of  North  America,  of 
which  the  Rev.  Alexander  Bullions  is  Minister,  of  the  second  part,  in 
consideration  of  seven  hundred  dollars,  conveyed  to  the  said  parties  of 
the  second  part  and  to  their  successors  in  office  forever,  two  certain 
pieces  or  parcels  of  land,  situate  in  the  said  town  of  Cambridge,  being 
two  subdivisions  of  lot  number  thirty-one  of  the  first  division  of  Carn- 
bridge  Patent,  one  of  which  pieces  contains  fourteen  acres,  and  other  six 
acres  and  twenty-two  perches  of  land — both  of  which  said  pieces  of  land 
are  particularly  described  in  said  deed  by  meets  and  bounds  and  courses 
and  distances — habendum,  to  the  said  parties  of  the  second  part  and 
their  successors  in  office  forever. 

And  on  or  about  the  ninth  day  of  March,  in  the  year  1835,  William 
Stevenson  and  Jane  his  wife,  of  the  said  town  of  Cambridge,  by  deed 


bearing  date  the  day  and  year  last  aforesaid,  between  them  as  parties  of  the 
first  part,  and  James  Coulter,  William  McGeoch,  George  Lourie,  James  T. 
Green,  2d,  and  Peter  Hill,  2d,  Trustees  of  the  Associate  Congregation  of 
Cambridge,  in  the  coimty  of  Washington,  and  state  of  New  York,  and  their 
successors  in  office,  adhering  to  the  Principles  of  the  Associate  Presbytery  of 
Pennsylvania  formerly,  now  formed  into  the  Associate  Synod  of  North  Amer- 
ica, of  Avhich  the  Rev.  Alexander  Bullions  is  now  minister,  of  the  second  part, 
in  consideration  of  five  dollars  conveyed  to  the  said  party  of  the  second  part, 
their  successors  in  office,  heirs  and  assigns  forever,  six  perches  and  ninety-one 
hundredths  of  land,  situated  in  said  town  of  Cambridge,  and  is  a  subdivision 
of  lot  number  thirty-two  of  the  first  division  of  Cambridge  patent — which 
said  piece  of  land  is  particularly  described  in.  said  deed,  by  meets  and  bounds, 
courses  and  distances— kabendum,  to  the  said  parties  of  the  second  part,  their 
successors  in  office,  heirs  and  assigns  to  their  sole  and  only  proper  use,  benefit 
and  behoof  forever,  in  trust. 

All  which  will  more  fully  appear  by  the  said  several  deeds  herein  before 
mentioned,  and  now  in  the  possession  of  your  Orators  ready  to  be  produced 
as  this  Honorable  Court  shall  direct,  and  to  which  Avhen  produced,  your  Ora- 
tors, for  greater  certainty  pray  leave  to  refer. 

And  your  Orators  further  shew  that  in  or  about  the  year  1833,  the  said  As- 
sociate Congregation  of  Cambridge  erected  and  built  upon  the  said  real 
estate,  so  granted  to  them  as  herein  before  mentioned,  a  brick  Church  Edifice 
or  meeting  house,  of  the  value  of  about  nine  thousand  dollars.  And  that  previ- 
ous to  the  first  day  of  June  in  the  year  1S38,  the  said  Associate  Congregation 
of  Cambridge,  also  erected  and  built  upon  the  said  premises  so  acquired  by 
them  as  aforesaid,  the  necessary  sheds  and  other  out-houses  for  the  accommo- 
dation of  the  members  of  the  said  Associate  Congregation  and  other  persons, 
attending  divine  worship  at  said  Church  Edifice  or  Meeting  house,  so  erected 
and  built  by  said  Associate  Congregation  as  aforesaid.  And  that  previous  to 
the  day  and  year  last  aforesaid,  the  said  Associate  Congregation  also  erected 
and  built  upon  the  premises  aforesaid,  a  suitable  dwelling  house  with  the  ne- 
cessary out-buildings  connected  therewith,  for  the  use  and  occupation  of  the 
Pastor  or  Minister  of  the  said  Associate  Congregation  of  Cambridge. 

And  your  Orators  further  shew,  that  the  said  real  estate  so  granted  to  the 
said  Associate  Congregation  of  Cambridge  as  aforesaid,  together  with  the 
brick  Church  Edifice  or  Meeting  house  and  other  buildings,  so  made  and  erec- 
ted thereon,  as  herein  before  mentioned,  is  now  of  the  value  of  about  thirteen 
thousand  dollars,  as  your  Orators  verily  believe. 

And  your  Orators  further  shew,  that  the  said  Associate  Congregation  of 
Cambridge,  have  also  acquired  considerable  personal  property,  such  as  a  libra- 
ry, furniture  for  the  Church  and  the  pulpit  thereof,  fire  wood  for  the  use  of 
Meeting  house,  &c.,  in  all  of  the  value  of  about  $450,  as  your  Orators  believe. 
All  of  which  property,  both  real  and  personal,  was  obtained,  acquired  and  ac- 
cumulated by  the  said  Associate  Congregation  of  Cambridge,  and  ever  has 
been  and  still  is  held  by  the  Trustees  of  said  Congregation,  in  trust  for  the 
sole  and  only  and  exclusive  purpose  of  being  devoted  and  appropriated  solely 
and  exclusively  to  the  support  and  maintenance  of  the  preaching  and  teaching 
the  gospel,  and  the  administration  of  divine  ordinances  in  said  Associate  Con- 
gregation, according  to  the  aforesaid  principles  of  faith  and  practice,  discipline 
and  government  of  said  Associate  Church  of  North  America.  According  to 
which  principles,  no  minister,  who  is  under  sentence  of  excommunication,  can 
be  permitted  to  occupy  the  pulpit,  or  administer  divine  ordinances  in  said  As- 
sociate Congregation.  Nor  can  any  member  of  said  Associate  Congregation, 
2 


10 

hear  tlic  prcacljing  and  receive  llic  administration  of  divine  ordinances,  from 
a  minister  nnder  sentence  of  excommunication,  without  violating  tlic  solemn 
vows,  which  they  took  upon  themselves  when  they  hecame  members  of  said 
Associate  Church — which  your  Orators  verily  and  most  conscientiously  believe 
would  be  sinful  in  the  sight  of  God. 

And  your  Orators  fnrtlier  shew,  that  on  or  about  the  21st  day  of  November, 
in  the  year  1S26,  the  said  Associate  Congregation  of  Cambridge  was  duly  in- 
corporated, under  and  by  virtue  of  the  statute  in  such  case  made  and  provi- 
ded, by  the  corporate  name,  style  and  description  of  "  The  Associate  Congre- 
gation of  Cambridge,  of  the  County  of  Washington,  and  State  of  New  York, 
adhering  to  the  principles  of  the  Associate  Presbytery  of  Pennsylvania,  for- 
merly, now,  the  Associate  Synod  of  North  America" — and  six  Trustees  were 
then  elected  as  by  the  certificate  of  incorporation,  recorded  in  the  Clerk's  Of- 
fice of  the  County  of  Washington,  on  the  0th  day  of  January,  in  the  year 
1827,  or  an  authenticated  copy  thereof,  ready  to  be  produced  by  your  Orators, 
W'ill  more  fully  appear,  and  to  which  when  produced  your  Orators  for  greater 
certainty  pray  leave  to  refer. 

And  your  Orators  further  shew,  that  said  Trustees  have  been  divided  into 
three,  classes,  and  one  third  thereof  elected  yearly,  and  every  year  since  the 
incorporation  of  said  Associate  Congregation. 

And  your  Orators  further  shew,  that  by  the  rules  and  principles  of  the  faith 
and  practice,  discipline  and  government  of  said  Associate  Church,  the  Trus- 
tees of  any  Congregation  thereof,  liave  no  power  or  authority  to  call,  or  in  any 
manner  to  obtain  or  procure  a  minister  to  preach  or  officiate  in  such  Congre- 
gation, either  as  Pastor  thereof,  or  temporarily,  or  even  on  a  single  occasion. 
That  a  clergyman  in  good  standing,  and  in  full  communion  and  fellowship 
with  said  Associate  Church,  can  only  be  called  to  the  office  of  Pastor  of  any 
Congregation  of  said  Church  by  a  call  signed  by  the  elders  and  members  of 
such  Congregation,  in  full  communion,  which  call  is  addressed  to  the  clergy- 
man whom  the  Congregation  -wish  to  call  as  their  Pastor,  is  preferred  and  pre- 
sented to  the  Presbytery,  to  which  such  Congregation  belongs  ;  if  the  Presby- 
tery approve  of  the  call,  and  the  clergyman  to  whom  it  is  addressed  accepts 
thereof,  he  is  ordained  and  installed  by  said  Presbytery  as  the  Pastor  of  said 
Congregation,  but  if  the  Presbytery  do  not  assent  to  and  approve  of  such  call, 
such  clergyman  cannot  become  the  Pastor  of  such  Congregation.  When  the 
A\dsh  of  a  Congregation  is,  to  have  the  office  or  place  of  Pastor  temporarily 
supplied,  the  elders  of  the  Congregation  petition  the  Presbytery  to  which  they 
belong  for  such  supply,  and  the  Presbytery  order  such  office  or  place  of  Pastor 
of  such  Congregation  to  be  supplied  for  such  length  of  time,  and  by  such  of 
its  clergymen  as  the  said  Presbytery  may  deem  proper.  It  is  admissible  for 
the  Session  of  the  Congregation  to  invite  a  minister  in  good  standing  and  in 
full  communion  with  said  Associate  Church,  to  preach  in  said  Congregation 
for  one  or  two  sabbaths,  as  the  exigencies  of  such  Congregation  may  require, 
but  in  no  other  way  or  manner  can  the  pulpit  of  any  Congregation  of  said  As- 
sociate Church  be  filled  or  supplied,  either  permanentlv,  temporarily  or  other- 
wise. 

And  your  Orators  further  shew,  that  in  or  about  the  year  1808,  the  said  As- 
sociate Congregation  of  Cambridge,  in  the  County  of  Washington,  called  the 
Rev.  Alexander  Bullions  as  their  Pastor  and  Minister.  Which  said  call  was 
in  writing,  and  is  now  in  the  possession  or  under  the  control  of  the  said  Alex- 
ander Bullions,  as  your  Orators  believe,  and  charge  the  fact  to  be,  and 
which  they  pray  he  may  be  required  to  produce  to  this  Honorable  court,  and 
which  was  in  the  words,  or  to  the  purport  and  eflect  following  :  that  is  to  say — 


11 

"  We,  the  Elders  and  other  members  of  the  Associate  Congregation  of 
Cambridge,  in  the  State  of  New  York,  in  full  communion,  who  have  acceed- 
ed  to  the  Lord's  cause  as  professed  and  maintained  hy  the  Associate  Presbyte- 
ry of  Cambridge,  as  subordinate  to  the  Associate  Synod  of  North  America, 
taking  into  our  serious  consideration  the  great  loss  we  suffer  through  the  want 
of  a  fixed  Gospel  Ministry  among  us,  and  being  fully  satisfied  from  opportu- 
nities of  enjoying  your  public  ministrations,  that  the  great  head  of  the  Lhurch 
has  bestowed  upon  you,  Mr.  Alexander  Bullions,  such  ministerial  gifts  and  en- 
dowments, as  through  the  Divine  blessing  may  be  profitable  for  our  edification: 
We  therefore  hereby  call  and  beseech  you  to  come  to  us  and  help  us,  by  ta- 
king the  charge  and  oversight  of  this  Congregation,  to  labor  in  it  and  watch 
over  it,  as  our  fixed  Pastor.  And  on  your  acceptance  of  this  our  call,  we 
promise  you  all  due  support,  respect,  encouragement  and  obedience  in  the 
Lord.     In  testimony  whereof,  &c." 

And  your  Orators  further  shew  that  such  call,  after  being  duly  signed  by 
the  Elders  and  members  of  said  Congregation,  was  delivered  to  and  received 
and  accepted  by  the  said  Alexander  Bullions,  through  the  hands  of  the  said 
Associate  Presbytery  of  Cambridge — and  such  proceedings  ,were  thereupon 
had  that  the  said  Alexander  Bullions  was  ordained  and  installed  as  the  Pastor 
and  minister  of  said  Associate  Congregation  of  Cambridge.  And  on  such  or- 
dination and  installation,  one  of  his  vows  Avas  in  answering  afiirmatively  the 
following  question — "  Do  you  engage  to  submit  yourself  willingly  and  humbly, 
in  the  spirit  of  meekness  to  the  admonitions  of  this  Presbytery,  as  subordinate 
to  the  Associate  Synod  of  North  America ;  and  do  you  promise  that  you  will 
endeaA'-or  to  maintain  the  spiritual  unity  and  peace  of  this  Church,  carefully 
avoiding  every  divisive  course,  neitheryielding  to  those  who  have  made  defection 
from  the  truth,  nor  giving  yourself  up  to  a  detestable  neutrality  and  indifference 
in  the  cause  of  God,  but  that  you  will  continue  steadfast  in  the  profession  of 
the  reformation  principles  maintained  by  us  ;  and  this  you  promise  through 
grace,  notwithstanding  any  trouble  or  persecution  you  may  be  called  to  sufl^r 
in  studying  a  faithful  discharge  of  your  duty  in  these  matters  ?" 

And  your  Orators  further  shew,  that  the  said  Alexander  Bullions,  continued 
to  be  the  Pastor  of  the  said  Associate  Congregation  of  Cambridge,  under  the  au- 
thority and  government  of  the  Associate  Presbytery  of  Cambridge  until,  after 
a  series  of  delinquencies  and  misconduct  on  his  part,  and  a  regular  course  of 
dealings  and  discipline  with  him  by  the  said  Presbytery  of  Cambridge,  the 
said  Presbyter)^,  on  or  about  the  12th  day  of  April,  in  the  year  1838,  at  South  Ar- 
gyle,  being  then  and  there  duly  convened  and  met,  pursuant  to  adjournment, 
after  setting  forth  in  a  preamble  the  delinquencies  and  unchristian  conduct  of 
the  said  Alexander  Bullions,  and  the  course  of  dealings  and  discipline  of  the 
said  Presbytery  with  him,  and  the  contumacy  of  the  said  Alexander  Bullions, 
unanimously  passed  sentence  of  deposition  and  excommunication  upon  him, 
in  the  words  following,  that  is  to  say. 

"  Resolved,  That  he  (the  said  Alexander  Bullions,)  be  deposed  from  the  of- 
fice of  the  holy  ministry,  and  discharged  from  exercising  any  part  of  the  same, 
aye,  and  until  he  give  satisfactory  evidence  of  his  repentance'  and  reformation 
— and  accordingly,  we,  the  Associate  Presbytery  of  Cambridge,  hereby  do — in' 
the  name  and  by  the  authority  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  depose  the  said  Alex- 
ander Bullions,  D.  D.,  from  the  office  of  the  holy  ministry,  and  prohibit  him 
from  exercising  any  part  of  the  same,  and  excommunicate  him  with  the  lesser 
sentence  of  excommunication,  until  he  repent  and  return  to  his  duty  in  submis- 
sion to  Presbytery. 

And  your  Orators  further  show,  that  the  said  Alexander  Bullions,  has  not 


12 

at  any  time,  since  the  said  deposition  and  cxcommiincation  made  submission  to 
tlie  s;iid  Presbytery,  but  appeali'd  ihcrefrom  lo  the  Synod;  and  on  or  about 
the  first  day  of  June,  in  the  year  1838,  the  said  Associate  Synod  of  North 
America,  having  full  power  and  ample  jurisdiction  to  decide  upon  the  said  ap- 
peal, proceeded  to  hear  and  determine  the  same,  and  after  hearing  the  proofs 
and  allegations  of  the  parties  and  due  deliberation  had  thereon,  the  said  Sy- 
nod decided  upon  the  said  appeal,  and  affirmed  the  decision  of  Presbytery — 
and  although  the  said  Alexander  Bullions  was  remitted  to  the  Presbytery  of 
Cambridge  by  the  said  Synod,  for  further  dealings,  yet  the  said  Alexander 
Bullions  has  never  appeared  before  the  said  Presbytery  of  Cambridge,  al- 
thouo-h  cited  in  due  form  to  appear  before  them — bat  has  persisted  and  still 
does  persist  in  exercising  the  office  of  Pastor  and  minister  of  the  said  Associ- 
ciate  Congregation,  in  defiance  and  contempt  of  the  authority  of  the  said  As- 
sociate Presbytery  of  Cambridge,  and  the  said  Associate  Synod  of  North 
America. 

And  your  Orators  further  shew,  that  the  oflice  of  Pastor  and  minister  of  the 
said  Associate  Congregation,  was  in  due  form  declared  vacant,  as  well  by  the 
said  Associate  Presbytery  of  Cambridge,  as  by  the   said  Associate   Synod  of 
North  America,  by  means  of  the  deposition  and  excomminiication  of  the  said 
Alexander  Bullions  as  herein  before  stated.     And  the  said  Synod  for  the  pur- 
pose of  supplying  said  vacancy  temporarily,  some  time  during  its  session  in 
the  month  of  May  or  June,  in  the  year   1838,  duly  appointed  the  Rev.  Alex- 
ander T.  McGill  and  the  Rev.  Joseph  McKie,  as  commissioners  to  labor  fqr  a 
short   season,   in  the   said  Associate  Congregation  of  Cambridge — and   said 
commissioners  were  also  required  by  the   said   Synod  to  labor  with   the  said 
Alexander  Bullions,  and  to   endeavor   to  bring  him   back  to  his  duty,  and   to 
heal  the  divisions  between  him  and  the  said  Associate  Congregation — and  on 
or  about  the  16th  day  of  June,  in  the  year  1838,  the  said  commissioners  ap- 
peared and  attended  at  Cambridge,  for   the  purpose  of  preaching  to  the  said 
Associate  Congregation,  and  performing  the  duties  assigned  to  and  imposed 
upon  them  by  the  said  Synod.     But  James  Coulter,  James  Shiland,  Robert 
McClelland  and  Peter  Hill,  being  a  majority  of  the  Trustees  of  the  said  Asso- 
ciate Congregation  of  Cambridge,  although  they,  the  said  Trustees  were  duly 
notified  of  the   said   deposition  and  excommunication  of  the   said  Alexander 
Bullions,  and  were  also  duly  notified  and  informed  that  the  said  Associate  Sy- 
nod had  declared  the  office  of  Pastor  of  the  said  Associate   Congregation  va- 
cant, and  had  duly  appointed  the  said  commissioners  to  supply  said  A-^acancy, 
as  herein  before  stated; — by  the  direction,  and  at  the  request  and  instigation 
of  the  said  Alexander  Bullions,   as  your   Orators  are   informed  and  believe, 
shut  the  doors  of  the  said  Meeting  house,  of  the  said  Associate  Congregation, 
against  the  said  commissioners,  and  absolutely  refused  to  permit  them  or  either 
of  them  to  occupy  the  pulpit  thereof,  or  to  preach  or  administer  divine  ordi- 
nances therein.     And  the  said  Trustees  have  permitted  and  still  do  permit  the 
said  Alexander  Bullions  to  occupy  the   pulpit,  and   to  preach  and  officiate  as 
Pastor  and  minister  in  the  said  Church,  Edifice  or  Meeting  house,  so  as  afore- 
said erected  by  the  said  Associate  Congregation  of  Cambridge,  and  sustain, 
uphold  and  support  him  therein,   and  liave  obtained  possession  of  the   books 
and  other  papers,  containing  the  minutes  or  records  of  the  proceedings,  of  the 
spiritualities  as  well  as  the  temporalities  of  said  Church,  and  have  rented  or 
pretended  to  rent,  or  otherwise  appropriate  the  seats  or  pews  in  said  Church 
Edifice,  for  a  term  of  five  years,  as  your  Orators  are  informed  and  believe,  to 
the  exclusion  of  your  Orators  and  the  other  members  of  the  said  Associate 
Congregation,  who  adhere  to  the  said  Associate  Presbytery  of  Cambridge,  and 


13 

the  said  Associate  Synod  of  North  America,  and  claim  to  and  do  control  all 
the  property,  real  and  personal,  of  the  said  Associate  Congregation,  acquired 
in  the  manner,  and  for  the  purpose  and  object  herein  before  stated,  and  per- 
sist in  diverting  it  from  those  uses  and  purposes,  and  in  appropriating  it  to  the 
maintenance  and  support  of  the  said  Alexander  Bullions,  and  of  his  preach- 
ings and  ministrations  as  Pastor  and  Minister,  notwithstanding  he  has  been 
legally  deposed  and  excommunicated,  as  herein  before  stated.  And  the  said 
Trustees  have  excluded  and  still  persist  in  excluding  clergymen  in  full  com- 
munion and  regular  standing  with  the  said  Associate  Presbytery  of  Cambridge 
and  the  said  Associate  Synod  of  North  America,  from  preaching  and  admin- 
istering divine  ordinances  in  said  church,  edifice  or  meeting  house,  and  have 
also  excluded  and  do  still  exclude,  your  Orators,  and  the  other  members  of 
the  said  Associate  Congregation,  who  adhere  to  the  principles  of  discipline 
and  Church  government  of  said  Associate  Church,  from  the  said  church  edi- 
fice or  meeting  house,  unless  they  will  consent  to  sit  under  the  preaching, 
teachings  and  ministrations  of  a  deposed  and  excommunicated  minister. 

And  your  Orators  further  shew,  that  the  said  James  Coulter,  James  Shi- 
land,  Robert  McClelland  and  Peter  Hill,  the  said  four  Trustees  herein  before 
named,  together  with  William  Stevenson  and  William  Robertson,  two  of  your 
Orators,  since  the  first  day  of  April,  in  the  year  1838,  have  been  and  still  are 
the  Trustees  of  the  said  Associate  Congregation  of  Cambridge — and  that  the 
said  James  Coulter,  James  Shiland,  Robert  McClelland  and  Peter  Hill  are 
adherents  and  supporters  of  the  said  Alexander  Bullions,  and  they,  together 
with  the  said  Alexander  Bullions,  and  the  said  Corporation  are  the  Defendants 
hereinafter  named. 

And  your  Orators  further  shew,  that  they  have  frequently  and  in  a  friend- 
ly manner,  in  behalf  of  themselves  and  the  other  members  of  the  said  Asso- 
ciate Congregation  of  Cambridge,  who  adhere  to  the  said  Associate  Presbyte- 
ry of  Cambridge,  and  to  the  Associate  Synod  of  North  America,  applied  to 
the  said  Alexander  Bullions  to  desist  from  preaching  or  administering  divine 
ordinances  in  the  said  church  edifice  or  meeting  house,  of  the  said  Associate 
Congregation  of  Cambridge,  and  to  the  said  James  Coulter,  James  Shiland, 
Robert  McClelland  and  Peter  Hill,  four  of  the  Trustees  of  thq  said  Associate 
Congregation,  to  exclude  the  said  Alexander  Bullions  from  preaching  in  the 
said  church  edifice  or  meeting  house  aforesaid,  and  requested  them  to  permit 
clergymen  in  regular  standing  and  full  communion  with  the  said  Associate 
Presbytery  of  Cambridge  and  the  said  Associate  Synod  of  North  America,  to 
preach  and  administer  divine  ordinances  in  the  said  church  edifice  or  meet- 
ing house,  and  to  permit  your  Orators  and  the  other  members  of  the  said  As- 
sociate Congregation,  who  adhere  to  the  principles  of  faith  and  practice,  dis- 
cipline and  goverment  of  said  Associate  Church,  to  occupy  the  said  church 
edifice  or  meeting  house  for  that  purpose,  and  requested  the  said  Trustees  to 
desist  and  refrain  from  diverting  and  misapplying  the  property  and  funds  of 
the  said  Associate  Congregation,  or  any  part  thereof,  to  the  support  of  the  said 
Alexander  Bullions,  or  to  the  aid  or  support  of  the  preaching  of  the  said 
Alexander  Bullions,  and  to  devote  and  appropriate  the  said  property  and  funds 
of  the  said  Associate  Congregation,  and  to  direct  and  administer  the  affairs  of 
the  said  Corporation,  according  to  the  uses,  trusts,  purposes  and  objects  for 
which  the  same  were  intended  by  the  founders  thereof,  as  herein  before  stated. 

With  which  reasonable  requests  your  Orators  had  well  hoped  the  said  De- 
fendants would  have  complied,  as  in  equity  and  good  conscience  they  ought 
to  have  done. 

But  now,  so  it  is.  mav  ,>  nlease  your  Honor,  that  the  said  Defendants,  com- 


14 

bininsj  nm\  onnfodor.-itincr  tofrolhor  and  to  and  with  divers  other  persons,  at  pres- 
ent unknown  to  your  Orators,  hut  whose  names  Avhen  discovered  your  Orators 
pray  may  be  herein  inserted,  with  apt  and  proper  words  to  charge  them  as 
j)arties,  Defendants  hereto,  to  injure  and  oppress  your  Orators,  and  the  other 
members  of  the  said  Associate  Congregation,  Avho  adhere  to  the  principles  of 
faith  and  practice,  discipline  and  government  of  the  said  Associate  Church,  in 
the  premises,  do  absolutely  refuse  to  comply  with  the  aforesaid  reasonable  re- 
(juests  of  your  Orators. 

For  reason  whereof,  the  said  Defendants  sometiraes  pretend  that  the  Trus- 
tees of  the  said  Associate  Congregation  of  Cambridge,  having  the  possession 
and  control  of  the  temporalities  thereof,  a  majority  of  them,  have  a  right  to 
appropriate  the  property  and  effects  thereof  to  the  maintenance  of  any  Pas- 
tor or  Minister,  and  to  the  support  of  any  christian  preaching  and  teaching  in 
said  Congregation,  they  may  think  proper. 

Wliereas  your  Orators  charge  the  contrary  of  such  pretence  to  be  the  truth  ; 
and  your  Orators  also  expressly  charge  that  the  Trustees  of  the  said  Associate 
Congregation,  cannot  without  a  violation  of  their  duty  and  trust,  appropriate 
the  property  and  effects  thereof,  to  any  other  use  or  purpose  than  that  for 
Avhich  it  was  originally  intended,  to  wit: — to  the  maintenance  and  support  of 
the  teaching  and  preaching  of  the  Gospel  and  the  administration  of  divine  or- 
dinances in  the  said  Associate  Congregation,  according  to  the  principles  of 
failli  and  practice,  discipline  and  government  of  the  said  Associate  Church 
— Avhich  can  only  be  done  by  a  Minister  or  Pastor  in  full  communion  and 
good  standing  with  the  said  Associate  Presbytery  of  Cambridge,  and  the  said 
Associate  Spiod  of  North  America. 

And  at  other  times,  although  the  said  Defendants  admit  that  the  said  Alex- 
ander Bullions  was  duly  and  legally  deposed  and  excommunicated,  by  the 
said  Synod,  as  herein  before  stated,  yet  then  they  pretend,  that  since  such 
deposition  and  excommunication,  he  the  said  Alexander  Bullions,  has  been  in 
all  things  restored  to  good  standing  in  said  Associate  Church  by  the  Presby- 
tery of  the  State  of  Vermont. 

Whereas  j'our  Orators  charge  the  contrary  of  such  pretence  to  be  the  truth; 
and  your  Orators  also  expressly  charge  and  aver  that  the  said  Presbytery  of  Ver- 
mont were  and  are  Avholly  and  totally  incompetent  to  restore  the  said  Alexan- 
der Bullions,  as  well  because  the  said  Presbytery  had  no  jurisdiction  whatever 
in  the  matter,  as  because  the  said  two  ministers  who  alone  compose  the  said  Pres- 
bj^tery  of  Vermont,  were  and  are  relatives  of  the  said  Alexander  Bullions  by 
marriage, — one  being  the  brother-in-law,  and  the  other  being  a  son-in-law  of 
the  said  Alexander  Bullions, — and  that  in  consequence  of  such  relationship 
the  said  two  ministers  who  alone  compose  the  said  Presbytery  of  Vermont, 
were  excluded  from  voting  or  taking  any  part  in  the  proceedings  of  the  said 
Associate  Presbytery  of  Cambridge,  upon  the  said  trial  of  the  said  Alexander 
Bullions  before  said  Associate  Presbytery.  The  said  Thomas  Goodwillie  and 
William  Pringle,  at  that  time  being  members  of  said  Associate  Presbytery  of 
Cambridge. 

And  the  said  Defendants  at  other  times  pretend  that  the  said  Alexander 
Bullions  is  willing  to  submit  to  the  authority  of  the  said  Associate  Presbytery 
of  Cambridge  and  to  the  said  Associate  Synod  of  North  America,  and  adhere 
to  and  abide  by  the  judgments  and  decisions  thereof.  And  this  pretended 
willingness  they  insist  authorises  them  to  continue  the  said  Alexander  Bul- 
lions as  pastor  or  minister  of  the  said  Associate  Congregation  of  Cambridge, 
notwithstanding  he  had  been  deposed  and  excommunicated,  as  herein  bc^'^re 
etated. 


15 

Whereas  your  Orators  charge  the  contrary  of  such  prcloncc  to  be  the  truth; 
and  they  also  charge  and  aver,  that  the  said  Alexander  Bullions  has,  as  your 
Orators  are  informed  and  believe,  repeatedly  declared  in  substance  and  effect, 
that  he  would  never  submit  to  the  authority  of  the  said  Associate  Presbytery, 
or  would  not  belong  to  it  one  hour  even  if  it  should  restore  him  immediately, 
and  such  your  Orators  believe  to  be  the  intention  and  fixed  determination  of 
the  said  Alexander  Bullions. 

And  your  Orators  also  charge,  aver  and  insist,  that  if  the  said  last  men- 
tioned pretence  of  the  said  Defendants  were  true,  it  could  give  the  said  De- 
fendants no  right  or  authority  whatever  to  permit  the  said  Alexander  Bullions 
to  preach  in  the  said  Church  edifice  or  meeting  house  of  the  said  Associate 
Congregation,  or  to  administer  divine  ordinances  of  any  description  therein,—- 
or  to  appropriate  the  property  and  eftects  of  the  said  Associate  Congregation 
to  the  support  of  the  preachings  and  ministrations  of  the  said  Alexander  Bul- 
lions therein.  That  the  said  sentence  of  the  said  Associate  Presbytery  and 
said  Associate  Synod,  deposing  and  excommunicating  the  said  Alexander  Bul- 
lions as  aforesaid,  must  be  in  due  form  legally  rescinded  and  he  restored  to 
full  communion  and  fellowship  with  the  said  Associate  Presbytery  of  Cam- 
bridge and  said  Associate  Synod  of  North  America  before  he  can  act  as  Pas- 
tor or  minister  of  said  Associate  Congregation  of  Cambridge,  or  of  any  other 
Congregation  of  the  said  Associate  Church. 

All  which  actings,  doings  and  pretences  of  the  said  Defendants  are  contra- 
ry to  equity  and  good  conscience,  and  tend  to  the  manifest  wrong,  injury  and 
oppression  of  your  Orators,  and  the  other  members  of  the  said  Associate  Con- 
gregation who  adhere  to  the  principles  of  faith  and  practice,  discipline  and 
government  of  the  said  Associate  Church,  in  the  premises. 

In  tender  consideration  whereof  and  for  as  much  as  your  Orators  are  remedi- 
less in  the  premises  at  and  by  the  direct  and  strict  rules  of  the  common  law, 
and  cannot  obtain  adequate  relief  save  in  a  court  of  equity  where  matters  of 
this  and  the  like  nature  are  properly  cognizable  and  relievable. 

To  the  end  therefore,  that  the  said  Defendants  and  their  confederates  when 
discovered,  may,  upon  their  several  and  respective  corporal  oaths,  full,  true, 
direct  and  perfect  answers,  make  to  all  and  singular  the  matters  and  things 
herein  before  stated  and  charged,  as  fully  and  particularly  in  every  respect  as 
if  the  same  were  here  again  repeated,  and  they  thereto  severally  and  speci- 
fically interrogated,  paragraph  by  paragraph,  and  that  they  so  answer  not  only 
as  to  the  best  and  utmost  of  their  several  and  respective  knowledge  and  re- 
membrance, but  also  as  to  the  best  and  utmost  of  their  several  and  respective 
information,  hearsay  and  belief,  and  that  they  may  answer  specifically  all  and 
singular  the  premises  aforesaid,  with  dates,  sums  and  all  attending  circum- 
stances. 

And  that  the  said  Defendants,  James  Coulter,  James  Shiland,  Robert  Mc- 
Clelland and  Peter  Hill,  may  be  compelled  by  a  decree  of  this  Honorable 
Court,  to  permit  Clergymen  in  g-ood  standing  and  full  communion  with  the 
said  Associate  Presbytery  of  Cambridge,  and  the  said  Associate  Synod  of 
North  America,  and  who  adhere  to  the  principles  of  faith,  discipline  and  gov- 
ernment of  the  said  Associate  Church,  to  preach,  teach  and  administer  divine 
ordinances,  according  to  the  established  and  received  doctrines  of  the  said 
Associate  Church,  to  the  said  Associate  Congregation  of  Cambridge  in  the 
aforesaid  church  edifice  or  meeting-house,  and  to  appropriate  the  funds,  prop- 
erty and  effects  of  the  said  Associate  Congregation,  or  Corporation,  to  the 
support  and  maintenance  of  such  preaching,  teaching  and  ministration,  and  to 
none  other.     And  that  they  together  with  the  said  Defendant  Alexander  Bui- 


16 

lions  may  be  required  to  come  to  a  full,  just  and  fair  accounting-  of  the  said 
properly,  funds  and  elfects,  and  of  the  proceeds  and  income  thereof,  since  the 
time  of  the  deposition  and  excommunication  of  the  said  Alexander  Bullions — 
that  the  said  four  Trustees  (Defendants)  be  removed  from  their  said  office  of 
Trustees  for  their  misconduct  and  breach  of  trust,  and  that  their  places  be 
supplied  in  such  manner  as  this  Honorable  Court  shall  direct,  and  that  they, 
the  said  four  Trustees  and  each  of  them,  be  required  to  deliver  to  the  Trustees 
then  to  be  appointed,  or  to  such  other  person  or  officer  as  this  Honorable  Court 
shall  direct,  all  and  singular  the  books,  papers,  property  and  ellects  of  said 
Associate  Congregation.  And  that  in  the  mean  time,  the  said  Defendant 
Alexander  Bullions  may  be  restrained  and  enjoined  by  the  order  and  injunc- 
tion of  this  Honorable  Court,  from  preachinir,  teaching,  or  in  any  manner,  offi- 
ciating as  Pastor  or  Minister  in  the  said  cliurch  edifice  or  meeting-house  of 
the  said  Associate  Congregation,  and  from  internieddliug,  in  any  manner,  with 
the  temporalities  and  spiritualities  of  said  Associate  Congregation.  And  that 
the  said  four  Trustees  (Defendants)  may,  in  like  maimer,  be  restrained  and 
enjoined  from  permitting  the  said  Alexander  Bullions  to  preach,  teach,  or  in 
any  manner,  administer  divine  ordinances  in  said  church  edifice  or  meeting- 
house, so  as  aforesaid,  belonging  to  the  said  Associate  Congregation  of  Cam- 
bridge, and  from  appropriating,  or  in  any  manner,  disposing  of  the  funds, 
property  and  effects  of  the  said  Associate  Congregation  for  any  other  purpose 
or  object  than  that  of  the  support  and  maintenance  of  a  Pastor  or  Minister  in 
regular  standing  and  in  full  communion  Avith  the  said  Associate  Presbytery  of 
Cambridge,  subordinate  to  the  said  Associate  Synod  of  North  America — 
duly  called,  sent  and  inducted  as  Pastor  of  said  Asssociate  Congregation,  ac- 
cording to  the  rules  and  principles  of  faith  and  practice,  discipline  and  gov- 
ernment of  said  Associate  Church.  And  that  your  Orators  may  have  such 
further  relief,  or  such  other  or  further  relief  in  the  premises,  as  the  nature  and 
circumstances  of  their  case  may  require,  and  as  may  be  agreeable  to  equity 
and  good  conscience. 

May  it  please  your  Honor,  the  premises  considered,  to  grant  unto  your  Ora- 
tors the  People's  writ  of  inj  unction,  issuing  out  of  and  under  the  seal  of  this 
Honorable  Court,  to  be  directed  to  the  said  Alexander  Bullions,  James  Coul- 
ter, James  Shiland,  Eobert  McClelland  and  Peter  Hill,  their  Counsellors,  At- 
torneys, Solicitors  and  Agents,  commanding  the  said  Alexander  Bullions  that 
he  absolutely  desist  and  refrain  from  preaching,  teaching,  or  in  any  manner, 
officiating  as  Pastor  or  IMinister  in  the  said  cliurch  edifice,  or  meeting-house 
of  the  said  Associate  Congregation  of  Cambridge,  or  from  intermedling  in 
any  manner,  Avith  the  temporalities  or  spiritualities  of  said  Associate  Congre- 
gation— and  commanding  the  said  James  Coulter,  James  Shiland,  Robert 
McClelland  and  Peter  Hill,  and  each  of  them,  absolutely  to  desist  and  refrain 
from  permitting  the  said  Alexander  Bullions,  or  any  other  Minister,  not  in  re- 
gular standing  and  full  communion  with  the  said  Associate  Church,  and  who 
shall  be  called  to  officiate  as  Pastor  of  said  Associate  Congregation,  according 
to  the  rules  and  principles  of  faith  and  practice,  discipline  and  government  of 
said  Associate  Church,  to  preach,  teach,  or  in  any  manner,  administer  divine 
ordinances  in  said  church  edifice,  or  meeting-house  of  the  said  Associate  Con- 
gregation of  Cambridge,  and  from  appropriating,  or  in  any  manner,  disposing 
of  the  funds,  property  or  effects  of  the  said  Associate  Congregation,  for  any 
other  purpose  or  object  whatsoever  than  that  of  the  support  and  maintenance 
of  a  Pastor  or  Minister,  for  said  Associate  Congregation,  in  regular  standing 
and  full  communion  with  the  said  Associate  Presbytery  of  Cambridge,  and 
the  said  Associate  Synod  of  North  America,  and  from  preventing  or  in  any 


1 


17 

manner  interfering  with  the  occupation  of  the  said  church  edifice,  by  your 
Orators  and  tlie  other  members  of  the  said  Associate  Congregation,  adhering 
to  the  said  Associate  Presbytery  and  the  said  Associate  Synod,  for  tlie  purpose 
of  having  divine  ordinances  administered  therein,  according  to  the  principles 
of  faith  and  practice,  discipline  and  government  of  the  said  Associate  Church, 
until  the  further  order  of  this  Honorable  Court  in  the  premises. 

May  it  also  please  your  Honor  to  grant  unto  your  Orators  the  People's  most 
gracious  writ  of  subpoena,  issuing  out  of  and  under  the  seal  of  this  Honorable 
Court,  to  be  directed  to  the  said  .Alexander  Bullions,  James  Coulter,  James 
Shiland,  Robert  McClelland,  Peter  Hill  and  the  Associate  Congregation  of 
Cambridge,  of  the  County  of  Washington  and  State  of  New- York,  adhering 
to  the  principles  of  the  Associate  Presbytery  of  Pennsylvania,  formerly,  now, 
the  Associate  Synod  of  North  America,  commanding  them  and  each  of  them 
to  appear  before  your  Honor  in  this  Honorable  Court,  according  to  the  rules 
and  practice  thereof,  then  and  there  to  answer  the  premises,  and  to  stand  to 
abide  by  and  perform  such  order,  direction  and  decree  therein,  as  shall  be 
agreeable  to  equity  and  good  conscience— and  your  Orators  shall  ever  pray,  &c. 

John  Crary,  Solicitor  JOHN  EOBERTSON, 

For  Complainants.  WILLIAM  McGEOCH, 

S.  Stevens,  of  Counsel  EDWARD  SMALL. 

State  of  Neav-York,  :  On  this  19th  day  of  March,  A.  D.,  1839, 
City  anil  County  of  Albany,  SS. :  before  me  personally  appeared  John  Robert- 
son, William  McGeoch  and  Edward  Small,  three  of  the  complainants  named 
in  the  foregoing  bill  of  complaint,  and  severally  made  oath  that  they  had 
heard  the  said  bill  of  complaint,  by  them  subscribed,  read  and  know  the  con- 
tents thereof,  and  that  the  same  is  true  of  their  own  knowledge,  except  as  to 
the  matters  which  are  therein  stated  to  be  on  the  information  or  belief  of  the 
said_^complainants,  and  as  to  those  matters  they  believe  it  to  be  true. 

R,  J.  HILTON,  Judge 

Albany  County  Courts. 


IN    CHANCERY: 
To  the  Chancellor  of  the  State  of  JYetv   York, 

Humbly  complaining,  your  Orators,  William  Stevenson,  William  Robert- 
son, William  McGeoch, "  Edward  Small,  John  McArthur,  James  McArlhur, 
Robert  McArthur,  Peter  McArlhur,  George  Small,  John  Arnot,  James  Arnot, 
EdAvard  Cook,  John  Robertson, 'Thomas  McMorris,  James  Hoy,  Jolin  McDoul, 
Isaac  Ashton,  John  Foster  and  William  Livingston,  members  in  full  commu- 
nion of  the  Church  known  as  the  Associate  Congregation  of  Cambridge,  of 
the  County  of  Washington,  in  the  State  of  New  York,  adhering  to  the  prin- 
ciples of  the  Associate  Presbytery  of  Pennsylvania,  formerly,  now  the  Asso- 
ciate Synod  of  Noi-th  America,  for  themselves  and  all  other  members  of  the 
said  Church  and  Congregation  who  adhere  to  the  standard  thereof,  respect- 
fully shew  unto  your  Honor,  That  on  or  about  the  20tli  day  of  March,  in  the 
year  1S39,  your  Orators  tiled  their  original  bill  before  your  Honor  in  this  Court, 
against  Alexander  Bullions,  James  Coulter,  James  Shiland,  Robert  McClelland, 
Peter  Hill,  and  the  Corporation  called  and  known  as  the  Associate  Congrega- 
tion of  Cambridge,  of  the  Couiity  of  Washington  and  State  of  New  York, 
3 


IS 

adhering  to  the  principles  of  the  Associate  Presbytery  of  Pennsylvania,  for» 
merly,  now  the  Associate  Synod  of  North  America,  as  Defendants  thereunto, 
statin:^,  charging,  and  praying  as  hereinafter  set  forth. 

And  your  Orators  further  shew,  that  the  said  Defendants  liaving  been  served 
with  process  to  appear,  have  appeared  by  theii'  Solicitor,  but  have  not  put  in 
any  answer  to  said  bill. 

And  your  Orators  further  shew,  that  on  the  6th  day  of  August,  in  the  year 
1839,  as  your  Orators  are  informed  by  their  Solicitor  and  by  a  certified  copy 
of  an  order  of  this  Court,  and  verily  believe,  leave  of  this  Court  was  duly 
granted  to  your  Orators,  upon  their  petition  and  motion,  and  upon  due  notice 
to  the  Solicitor  of  said  Defendants,  to  file  a  supplemental  Bill,  with  leave  to 
insert  therein  such  amendatory  matter,  with  all  proper  averments  to  make  the 
same  pertinent,  as  your  Orators  might  be  advised,  without  prejudice,  hoAvever, 
to  the  right  of  said  Defendants,  or  any  of  them,  to  demur  to  the  said  supple- 
mental Bill,  or  to  any  matter  contained  therein,  if  they  the  said  Defendants 
should  be  advised  so  to  do. 

And  your  Orators  further  shew,  that  in  and  by  said  original  Bill,  your  Ora- 
tors stated  and  shewed  unto  your  Honor,  that  in  or  or  about  the  year  1754,  as 
your  Orators  are  informed  and  believe,  the  sect  or  denomination  of  Christians, 
known  in  common  parlance  as  the  Associate  Church  of  North  America,  but 
which  is  now  styled  and  called  in  the  minutes  and  records  of  the  proceedings 
of  said  Church  "  the  Associate  Spied  of  North  America,"  was  in  all  due  form 
organized  as  a  Church  in  the  then  Province  of  Pennsylvania,  under  the  in- 
spection, superintendence  and  care  of  the  Associate  Synod  of  Scotland,  and 
the  several  Congregations  of  said  Church,  at  or  about  the  same  time,  by  the 
authority  of  said  Synod,  constituted  and  organized  a  Presbytery,  which  was 
styled  "  The  Associate  Presbytery  of  Pennsylvania,"  and  which  was  then  sub- 
ordinate to  the  said  Associate  Synod  of  Scotland. 

And  your  Orators  further  shew,  in  said  original  Bill,  that  in  or  about  the 
year  17S4,  sundry  of  individuals  of  the  toAvn  of  Cambridge,  and  other  adja- 
cent toAvns  in  the  State  of  NeAv  York,  professing  the  tenets,  principles  and 
faith  of  the  said  Associate  Church,  petitioned  the  Associate  Presbytery  of 
Pennsyh-ania,  praying  said  Presbytery  to  send  one  of  their  number  to  dispense 
divine  ordinances  to  and  among  said  petitioners  according  to  the  received  prin- 
ciples of  the  said  Presb}1:ery.  And  in  or  about  the  latter  part  of  the  said  year 
1784,  in  compliance  Avith  the  pra^-er  of  said  Petition,  the  Eev.  Thomas  Bev- 
eredge  AA^as  sent  by  the  said  Presbytery  to  the  said  petitioners,  at  said  Cam- 
bridge— and  in  the  early  part  of  the  year  1785,  a  Congregation  Avas  duly  or- 
ganized as  a  local  Church  in  said  toAvn  of  Cambridge,  under  and  subordinate 
to  the  said  Associate  Presbytery,  according  to  the  principles  of  said  Presbyte- 
ry, and  subject  to  the  discipline  and  government  thereof,  Avhich  said  Congre- 
"•ation  Avas  called  and  knOAvn  by  the  name  and  style  of  "  The  Associate  Con- 
gregation of  Cambridge,  adhering  to  the  Associate  Presbytery  of  Pennsylva- 
nia." The  term  "  Cmgregation^''  as  used  in  the  said  Associate  Church,  means 
a  local  Cliurch,  comprising  the  persons  Avho  are  members  thereof  in  full  com- 
munion, and  their  children,  Avithin  a  particular  territory  conA'^enient  for  the  as- 
sembling and  attending  upon  divine  AA^orship. 

And  your  Orators  in  said  original  Bill,  further  sheAV,  that  in  or  about  the  year 
1802,  the  said  Associate  Church,  adlj^ng  and  subordinate  to  the  said  Associ- 
ate Presbytery  having  greatly  increaseu,  said  Associate  Presbytery  of  Penn- 
syh'ania  Avas  divided  into  several  separate  Presbyteries,  that  is  to  say — "  The 
Associate  Presbytery  of  Cambridge,  the  Associate  Presbytery  of  Philadelphia, 
the  Associate  Presbytery  of  Chartiers,  and  the  Associate  Presbytery  of  Ken- 


19 

lucky — the  name  of  which  last  mentioned  Presbytery  has  since  been  changed 
to  that  of  Miami.     To  which  there  have  been  since  added  at  different  times, 
the   Associate   Presbyteries  of  the   Carolinas,   Ohio,  Alleohany,  Muskingum, 
Albany,  Chenango,   Stamford,  Indiana,  Illinois,  Richland  and  Vermont,  being 
in  all  at  the  present  time,  fifteen.     And  it  was  also  deemed  expedient  and  ne- 
cessary to  erect  a  Synod  in  North  America,  and  accordingly,  at  or  about  the 
same  time,  (1S02)  a  Synod  was  duly  constituted  and  organized  by  said  Asso- 
ciate Church,  as  the   Supreme  Judicatory  of  said  Church  in   North  America, 
and  to  which  all  the  Presbyteries  and  Congregations  of  said  Associate  Church 
were  and  are  subordinate  and  subject,  and  owe  obedience  and  submission,  ac- 
cording  to  the   principles,   discipline   and  government   of  the  said   Associate 
Church,  which  said  Synod  was  and  is  called  and  known  by  the  name  and  style 
of  "  the  Associate  Synod  of  North  America."  And  although  the  Associate  Pres- 
bytery  of  Pennsylvania,   and  also   afterwards   the  Associate   Synod  of  North 
America  had  acknowledged  ecclesiastical  subordination  to  the  Associate  Sy- 
nod in  Scotland,  yet,  in  or  about  the  year  1817,  this  subordination  was  abol- 
ished by  a  deed  of  the  general  Associate  Synod  of  Scotland,  which  deed  was 
acquiesced  in  by  the  Associate  Synod  of  North  America. 

And  your  Orators  in  said  original  Bill,  further  shew,  that  at  the  meeting  of 
the  said  Synod  of  North  America  in  May,  in  the  year  1838,  the  Reverend 
Thomas  Goodwillie  and  the  Rev.  William  Pringle,  who  respectively  had 
charge  of  Congregations  in  the  State  of  Vermont,  as  ministers  and  pastors, 
Avere  regularly  erected  by  said  Spiod,  as  a  separate  Presbytery,  called  the 
Associate  Presbytery  of  Vermont,  but  previous  to  that  time,  said  ministers  and 
said  Congregations  belonged  to  and  formed  a  part  of  said  Associate  Presbyte- 
ry of  Cambridge. 

And  your  Orators  further  shew,  in  said  original  Bill,  that  the  said  "Associ- 
ate Congregation  of  Cambridge  has  belonged  to  and  formed  a  part  of  said 
Associate  Presbytery  of  Cambridge  ever  since  its  organization,  and  still  does 
belong  thereto  and  form  a  part  thereof. 

And  your  Orators  further  shew,  in  said  original  Bill,  that  the  Judicatories 
established  by  said  Church  for  the  proper  discipline  and  good  government 
thereof  and  of  all  its  Congregations,  members  and  officers,  are  Sessions,  Pres- 
byteries, and  a  Synod. 

That  said  Judicatories  were  established  at  an  early  period  of  the  history  of 
said  Church  in  Scotland,  and  were  adopted  by  said  Associate  Church  in  Amer- 
ica upon  its  organization  in  Pennsylvania,  as  herein  before  stated.  A  session 
consists  of  the  minister  or  ministers,  (where  there  are  more  than  one,)  and  the 
ruling  elders  of  a  particular  Congregation.  A  Session  has  the  general  super- 
intendence and  control  and  government  of  the  Congregation — admits  persons 
to  the  communion,  with  power  to  call  before  them  and  proceed  against  offen- 
ding members  and  to  punish  by  the  censures  of  the  said  Church  as  the  case 
may  require.  But  a  Session  has  no  authority  to  try,  or  otherwise  deal  with 
its  ministers. 

And  your  Orators,  by  leave  of  this  Court  first  obtained  as  aforesaid,  further 
shew,  by  way  of  amendment  to  said  original  Bill,  that  a  Session  also  has  full 
power  and  ample  authority  to  suspend  any  of  the  members  of  its  Congrega- 
tion from  the  communion  and  all  other  privileges  as  members  of  the  said 
Church,  upon  any  charge  or  information,  obtained  by  any  of  the  members  of 
such  Sessions,  of  any  errors  or  heresies  in  faith,  or  immorality  in  conduct,  un- 
til a  trial  and  regular  course  of  dealing  can  be  had,  according  to  the  rules  of 
faith,  practice,  discipline  and  government  of  said  Associate  Church.  And  the 
Sessions  have  full  power  to  excommunicate  any  of  the  officers  or  members  of 
its  Congregation,  except  the  minister  thereof 


'JO 

And  your  Orators  fiiriher  shew,  in  said  orifrinal  Bill,  that  any  jirrson  fecl- 
inp:  ai^fjrricved  ])y  tho  sontcncc  of  a  Session,  may  appeal  to  the  Presbytery  of 
wliicli  tlio  said  Session  is  a  member. 

A  J*resbytery  consists  of  all  (he  ministers  and  one  nilinpj  elder  from  each 
settled  or  ori!faniz((l  Conjj^retrMtion  within  a  part  icidar  district,  and  has  due  and 
ample  ecclesiastical  cognizance  of  all  things  that  reLMrd  the  Avellarc  of  the 
particular  Congregations  or  Churches  within  its  hoinids — of  receiving  and  is- 
suing appeals  from  the  several  sessions  within  its  bounds,  and  of  hearing  and 
determining  the  same — of  ordaining,  settling  and  removing  ministers  within 
its  bounds  or  jurisdiction — of  trying  all  ministers  belonging  to  said  Presbyte- 
ry when  accused,  and  of  acquitting  or  convicting  as  the  case  may  require ; 
and  if  convicted,  of  punishing  by  suspension,  deposition,  and  excomminiica- 
tiou  or  other  censures  of  said  Chin'ch — of  visiting  the  Congregations  within 
their  bounds,  to  inquire  into  their  state,  to  redress  anjr  evils  that  may  have 
arisen  within  them,  and  generally  ordering  Avhatevcr  pertains  to  the  good  gov- 
ernment of  that  part  of  the  Church  which  is  under  their  immediate  inspec- 
tion. 

And  your  Orators,  by  like  leave,  further  shew  by  way  of  amendment,  that 
a  Presbytery  also  has  full  power  and  ample  authority  to  suspend  or  excommu- 
nicate, or  both,  any  Congregation  or  any  portion  of  any  Congregation  en  masse, 
within  its  bounds  or  jurisdiction,  or  under  its  control,  supervision  or  inspection, 
for  any  error  in  doctrine,  immorality  in  practice,  insubordination,  schismatic, 
or  other  disorganizing  or  heretical  conduct,  or  other  disregard  of,  or  non-com- 
pliance with,  the  deeds,  acts,  decrees  or  decisions  of  the  Presbytery,  or  con- 
tempt or  disobedience  of  its  lawful  authority,  and  to  declare  who  do  ol"  who 
do  not  compose  any  part  of,  and  who  are  and  who  are  not  members  of  any 
Congregation,  and  in  all  respects  to  determine  and  declare  the  ecclesiastical 
standing  of  any  Congregation  or  any  part  thereof,  within  its  jurisdiction  or 
under  its  supervision  or  inspection,  and  who  are  and  who  arc  not  the  legal  and 
regular  elders  of  any  such  Congregation,  and  whether  the  Session  of  any  such 
Congregation  has  been  or  is  legally  and  canonically  constituted,  and  every 
Congregation  belonging  to,  or  within  the  bounds  or  jurisdiction  of  any  Pres- 
bytery, or  under  its  control,  superivision  or  inspection,  are  bound  to  yield  obe- 
dience, and  in  all  things  to  observe  and  conform  to  the  acts,  deeds,  sentences 
and  decisions  of  such  Presbytery,  in  all  matters  of  doctrine,  faith,  practice, 
disci])line  and  government. 

And  by  said  original  bill  your  Orators  further  ,shew  that  any  party  feeling 
aggrieved  by  any  sentence  or  decision  of  a  Presbytery  may  appeal  to  the 
Synod. 

The  Synod  is  the  Supreme  Judicatory  of  the  Church.  It  is  composed  of  all 
the  Ministers  in  the  several  Presbyteries  of  said  Associate  Church  under  the 
inspection  of  the  Synod,  or  of  delegations  of  Ministers  from  said  Presbyteries, 
together  with  the  ruling  elders  from  said  Presbyteries. 

The  Synod  has  power  to  hear  and  finally  determine  all  appeals,  regularly 
Ih'ought  from  any  Presbytery,  to  decide  on  all  references  made  to  it  to  review 
the  records  and  proceedings  of  the  Presbyteries,  to  redress  whatsoever  is  done 
contrary  to  order,  and  of  reproving,  warning  and  bearing  testimony  against 
all  error  in  doctrine  or  immorality  in  practice,  in  any  Presbytery  or  in  any 
Congregation  or  Church,  of  electing  new  Presbyt'eries,  when  the  Synod  may 
deem  it  necessary. 

And  your  Orators  (by  like  leave)  further  shew  by  way  of  amendment  that 
tlie  Synod  also  has  power  to  suspender  dissolve  any  Presbytery  to  connect  the 
members  of  it  with    another   Presbytery,  and  to  place  the  Congregations  be- 


21 

longing  to  it,  under  the  care  of  any  other  Presbytery,  temporarily  or  perma- 
nently, as  the  Synod  may  deem  meet,  and  upon  deposing  any  Minister,  or  upon 
affirming  the  act  or  sentence  of  any  Presbyter}-,  deposing  any  Minister,  the 
SjTiod  has  full  power  and  lawful  authority  to  declare  tbe  oHicc  of  Pastor  or 
Minister  in  the  Congregation  to  which  the  deposed  Minister  had  heen  called, 
vacant  ;  and  whenever  the  Synod  may  deem  it  necessary  to  appoint  and  send 
commissioners  to  labor  in  any  Congregation  of  said  Associate  Church,  by  per- 
suasion, exhortation  and  preaching  for  the  purpose  of  correcting  any  error  i» 
doctrine,  or  healing  any  division  or  other  diliiculties  which  may  exist  ;  and 
generally,  to  do  whatever  may  be  necessary,  proper  and  just,  to  preserve  the 
peace,  harmony  and  purity  of  the  Church. 

And  your  Orators  in  said  original  bill,  further  shew  that  the  "  Associate/ Sy- 
nod of  North  America  is  the  Supreme  Judicatory  of  the  said  Associate  Church 
in  North  America;  and  its  decisions  are  final,  and  by  the  faith  and  doctrine  of 
said  Church,  obligatory  upon  all  the  Judicatories,  Officers,  Members  and  Con- 
gregations of  said  Church. 

And  your  Orators  further  shew  in  said  original  bill,  that  there  are  two  sen- 
tences of  excommunication,  used  by  the  Judicatories  of  the  said  Associate 
Church  for  the  discipline  thereof,  one  of  which  is  called  the  l^her  sentence 
and  the  other  the  lesser  sentence  of  excommunication. 

The  former  severs  all  ties  of  connexion  between  the  Church  and  the  offend-* 
ing  member,  while  the  latter,  although  it  suspends  and  cuts  off  the  offending 
member  from  all  rights,  privileges  and  immunities  as  a  member  of  the  Church, 
until  it  is  revoked,  yet  the  Church  continues  the  power  of  remonstrating,  la- 
boring and  dealing,  with  the  offending  member  for  the  purpose  of  bringing 
him  to  repentance,  and  a  return  to  his  duty  as  a  member  of  said  Church,  and 
not  till  all  discipline,  labor  and  remonstrance  are  found  to  be  in  vain,  is  the 
higher  sentence  of  excommunication  inflicted. 

And  your  Orators  further  shew  in  said  original  bill,  that  in  or  about  the  year 
17S4,  the  said  Associate  Church  of  North  America,  through  the  said  Associate 
Presbytery  of  Pennsylvania,  adopted  and  published  a  particular  statement  of 
their  principles  in  a  booji:,  commonly  called  and  known  as  "the  declaration 
and  testimony  of  the  Associate  Church  of  North  America." 

These  principles  require  every  member  admitted  to  communion  in  said  As- 
sociate Church,  solemnly  to  declare  and  profess  his  or  her  adherence  to  the 
Westminster  confession  of  faith,  the  larger  and  shorter  catechisms,  form  of 
Presbyterian  Church  government,  aiul  directory  for  the  public  worship  of  God, 
as  expounded,  received  and  witnessed  for  in  the  said  declaration  and  testimony 
of  the  said  Associate  Church,  and  to  declare  and  profess  their  approbation  of 
said  declaration  and  testimony,  and  to  declare  their  solemn  and  fixed  promise 
and  resolution  through  grace,  to  continue  in  the  faith  as  exhibited  and  declared 
in  said  standard,  and  to  be  subject  to  the  order  and  discipline  of  said  Church, 
and  every  officer,  whether  ruling  elder  or  minister,  is  required  by  his  ordina- 
tion, vows  to  submit  himself  willingly  and  humbly  to  the  Church  Courts  of 
said  Associate  Church,  to  endeavor  to  maintain  the  spiritual  unity  and  peace 
of  said  Church,  to  continue  steadfast  in  the  principles  professed  by  the  said 
Associate  Church,  and  carefully  to  avoid  every  divisive  course  ;  every  ruling 
elder  promises  in  his  vows  submission  in  the  Lord  to  his  session,  and  every 
minister  to  his  Presbytery  as  subordinate  to  the  Associate  Synod  of  North. 
America. 

And  your  Orators  further  shew  in  said  original  Bill  tha^the  principles  thus 
adopted,  established,  published  and  promulgated  by  said  Associate  Church, 
have  ever  been  and  still  are  the  principles  of  the  faith  and  practice,  discipline 


22 

mid  <Tovcrnmcnt  of  the  said  Associate  CMmroh,  nnd  nrc  oblip^atory  upon  overy 
offli-or  and  incmbcr  thereof. 

And  your  Orators  further  shew  in  said  oricfinal  Hill  tliat  the  said  Associate 
Con^jregation  of  Canibridire  have  always  since  their  first  orc^'anization  in  1785, 
as  herein  before  mentioned,  been,  in  all  respects  duly  organized  as  a  Congre- 
gation or  Church,  and  they  Avere  incorporated  in  the  year  1826 — that  as  well 
before  as  since  tlie  incorporation  thereof,  the  temporalities  of  the  said  Congre- 
gation, and  of  all  other  Congregations  of  said  Associate  Church,  were  com- 
mitted to  the  custody  and  care  of  Trustees,  elected  by  the  members  of  the 
said  Congregation  in  full  communion  from  among  themselves. 

That  subsequent  to  the  said  first  organization  of  the  said  Associate  Con- 
gregation of  Cambridge,  and  prior  to  the  year  1838,  the  said  Congregation 
acquired  by  donations  and  subscriptions,  from  among  themselves  and  other- 
wise, the  following  veal  property  and  estate,  that  is  to  say. 

On  or  about  the  7th  day  of  July,  1786,  Jonathan  French,  then  of  the  town 
of  Cambridge,    by    deed  of  that    date,  between  himself,  as  party  of  the  first 
part,  and   John  Blair,   James    Small,   James  Eddie,  James  Irvine,  William 
McAitley,  David  French  and  George  Miller,  chosen  and  elected  Trustees  for 
the  Associate  Congregation  of  Cambridge,  adhering  to  the  Associate  Presby- 
tery of  Pennsylvania,  of  the  second  part,  in  consideration  of  six  pounds,  con- 
veyed to  the  said  party  of  the  second  part  and  their  successors  forever  one  half 
acre  of  land,  situate  in  said  town  of  Cambridge,  on  the  south  part  of  lot  num- 
ber thirty-two  of  the    first   division — which  piece  of  land  is  particularly  de- 
scribed in  said  deed,  by  meets   and  bounds,  and  courses  and  distances,  haben- 
dum, to  the  said  party    of  the  second  part,  and  to  their  successors,  forever,  to 
the  sole  and  only  proper  use,  benefit  and  behoof  of  the  said  Associate  Congre- 
gation   of  Cambridge,  with   full    covenants,    among  which  is  a  covenant  for 
such  further  assurance  as  may  be  deemed  necessary  to  vest  said  piece  or  par- 
cel of  land    in   the  said    party  of  the  second  part  and  their  successors  for  the 
sole  use  of  the  said  Associate  Congregation  of  Cambridge — which  said  deed 
not  having  been  executed  by  the  Avife  of  the  said  grantor,  and  it  being  sup- 
posed that  there  were  some  other  defects  therein,  and  the  said  Associate  Pres- 
bytery of  Pennsylvania  having  been  divided  into  several  Presbyteries,  and  the 
Associate  Synod  of  North   America  having  been  established  as  herein  before 
mentioned,  the  said  Jonathan  French  and  Jane  his  wife,  by  the  consent  of  all 
the  grantors  in  said  deed,  on  or  about   the  twenty-first  day  of  January,  1810, 
by  a  certain    indenture    or    deed  of  confirmation  of  that  date,  made  between 
himself   and  his  said  wife,  of  the    first  part,  and  James  Small,  James  Eddie, 
James  Irvine,    Alexander    Skellie,    senior,  James  Hoy,  James  Rolle,  William 
Stevenson,  John  Robertson,    Samuel  Green,   Alexander  Skellie,  junior,  John 
Shiland,  junior,  James  Hill,  Alexander  Livingston  and  William  McGeoch,  of 
said  tow^n  of  Cambridge,  Trustees  for    the   Associate  Congregatien  of  Cam- 
bridge,   in  accession  to  the   principles   presently  maintained  by  the  Associate 
Synod   of  North   America,    and   now   under  the  inspection  of  the  Associate 
Presbj^tery  of  Cambridge,  belonging  to  the  said  Synod,  and  whereof  the  Rev. 
Alexander  Bullions  is  the  present  Pastor,  parties  of  the  second  part,  reciting 
the  said  last  mentioned  conveyance  from  the  said  Jonathan  French,  and  that 
the  Associate  Congregation  was  not  incorporated,  and  that  the  said  Associate 
Congregation  had  elected  the  said  parties  of  the  second  part,  Trustees  thereof 
for  the  purpose  of  managing  and  taking  care  of  the  temporalities  of  said  As- 
sociate   Congregation — and  that   doubts  had  arisen  whether   the  title  to  said 
premises  was  completely  vested  in  the  members,  Avho  then  were  or  thereafter 
might  be  in  full  communion  with,  and  compose  the  said  Congregation,  and  in 


23 

such  persons  as  they  then  had  elected  and  chosen,  or  at  any  time  thereafter 
might  elect  and  choose  from  among  themselves  as  Trustees  to  manage  and  take 
the  charge  and  care  of  the  temporalities  of  the  said  Congregation  and  their 
successors  in  office  of  Trustees,  and  that  the  said  grantor  was  willing  to  re- 
move all  such  doubts,  and  to  confirm  and  secure  the  title  to  the  said  premises 
in,  and  to  the  members  who  then  were  or  thereafter  might  be  in  full  com- 
munion with,  and  should  compose  the  said  Congregation,  and  in  and  to  such 
persons  as  they  then  had  elected,  or  at  any  time  thereafter,  might  elect  and 
choose  from  among  themselves  as  Trustees  to  take  the  charge  and  care 
of  the  temporalities  of  said  Congregation  and  their  successors  in  the  office 
of  Trustees,  to  be  elected  and  chosen  as  aforesaid,  forever,  thereafter. 

In  consideration  for  the  better  testing  and  confirming  the  title  aforesaid,  and 
also  in  consideration  of  one  dollar,  did  grant,  bargain,  sell,  remise,  release  and 
confii'm  to  the  said  parties  of  the  second  part,  their  heirs  and  assigns,  the  said 
before  mentioned  premises,  habendum  to  the  said  parties  of  the  second  part, 
their  heirs  and  assigns  forever  to  the  intent  for  the  use  and  interest,  for  the 
members  who  then  were  or  thereafter  might  be  in  full  communion  with  and 
should  compose  the  said  Associate  Congregation  of  Cambridge  in  accession 
to  the  principles  then  presently  maintained  by  the  Associate  Synod  of  North 
America,  and  then  under  the  inspection  of  the  Associate  Presbytery  of  Cam- 
bridge, belonging  to  said  Synod,  and  for  such  persons  as  the  said  members  at 
any  time  thereafter  might  elect  and  choose  from  among  themselves  as  Trus- 
tees and  their  successors  in  office  to  be  elected  and  chosen  as  aforesaid. 

And  on  or  about  the  24th  day  of  December,  in  the  year  1799,  James  Gil- 
more,  then  of  the  said  town  of  Cambridge,  by  deed  of  that  date,  between 
himself  as  party  of  the  first  part,  and  Alexander  Skellie,  senr.,  James  Irvine, 
James  Hoy,  James  Rolle,  Samuel  Green,  William  Stevenson  and  Robert  Gum- 
ming, Trustees  for  the  Associate  Congregation  of  Cambridge  aforesaid,  and 
their  successors,  in  accession  to  the  principles  presently  maintained  by  the  As- 
sociate Presbytery  of  Pennsylvania,  and  now  under  the  inspection  of  said 
Presbytery  of  the  second  part,  in  consideration  of  twenty-eight  pounds  con- 
veyed to  the  said  party  of  the  second  part,  and  to  their  successors  forever, 
half  an  acre  of  land  situate  in  said  town  of  Cambridge,  being  part  of  lot 
number  thirty-one  of  the  first  division  of  Cambridge  Patent,  Avhich  said  piece 
of  land  is  particularly  described  in  said  deed  by  meets  and  bounds  and  comses 
and  distances,  habendum  to  the  said  party  of  the  second  part,  and  their  succes- 
sors for  the  proper  use,  benefit  and  behoof  of  the  said  Associate  Congregation 
of  Cambridge  forever. 

And  on  or  about  the  23d  day  of  October,  in  the  year  1827,  Alexander  Bul- 
lions, then  of  the  said  town  of  Cambridge,  together  with  Mary  his  wife,  by 
deed  of  that  date  between  them,  as  parties  of  the  first  part,  and  Francis  Mc- 
Lean, William  Stevenson,  William  McGeoch,  Edward  Small,  John  Robertson, 
Tanner,  and  George  Lourie,  Trustees  of  the  Associate  Congregation  of  Cam- 
bridge, of  the  County  of  Washington,  and  State  of  New  York,  adhering  to  the 
principles  of  the  Associate  Presbytery  of  Pennsylvania  formerly,  now  the  As- 
sociate Synod  of  North  America,  of  which  the  Rev.  Alexander  Bullions  is 
minister  of  the  second  part,  in  consideration  of  seven  hundred  dollars  convey- 
ed to  the  said  parties  of  the  second  part,  and  to  their  successors  in  office  forever, 
two  certain  pieces  or  parcels  of  land  situate  in  the  said  town  of  Cambridge, 
being  two  sub-divisions  of  lot  number  31  of  the  first  division  of  Cambridge 
Patent ;  one  of  which  pieces  contains  fourteen  acres,  and  the  other  six  acres 
and  twenty-two  perches  ol  land — both  of  which  said  pieces  of  land  are  par- 
ticularly described  in  said  deed  by  meets  and  bounds  and  courses  and  distan- 


24. 

ces — hnhcndmn  lo  the  said  partio<=  of  tlic  socond  part  and  their  snccecsors  ifl 
office  forever. 

And  on  or  about  the  9th  day  of  March,  in  the  j'car  183-5,  William  Steven- 
son and  Jane  his  wife,  of  the  said  town  of  CambridfTo,  by  deed  bearing  date 
the  day  and  year  last  aforesaid,  between  them  as  parties  of  the  first  part,  and 
James  Coulter,  William  McGeoch,  George  Lourie,  James  T.  Green,  2nd,  and 
Peter  Hill,  2nd,  Trustees  of  the  Associate  Congregation  of  Cambridge,  in  tlie 
County  of  Wasliington,  and  State  of  New  York,  and  their  successors  in  office, 
adhering  to  the  principles  of  tlie  Associate  Presbytery  of  Pennsylvania  for- 
merly, now  formed  into  the  Associate  Synod  of  North  America,  of  which  the 
Rev.  Alexander  Bullions  is  now  the  minister  of  the  second  part,  in  considera- 
tion of  five  dollars,  conveyed  to  the  said  party  of  the  second  part,  their  suc- 
cessors in  office,  heirs  and  assigns  forever,  six  perches  and  ninety-one  hun- 
dredths of  land  situate  in  said  town  of  Cambridge,  and  is  a  sub-division  of  lot 
number  thirty-two  of  the  first  division  of  Cambridge  Patent,  which  said  piece 
of  land  is  particularly  described  in  said  deed  by  meets  and  bounds,  courses 
and  distances,  habendum  to  the  said  parties  of  the  second  part,  their  succes- 
sors in  office,  heirs  and  assigns,  to  their  sole  and  only  proper  use,  benefit  and 
behoof  forever  in  trust. 

All  which  will  more  fully  appear  by  the  said  several  deeds  herein  before 
mentioned,  and  now  in  the  possession  of  your  Orators  ready  to  be  produced  as 
this  Honorable  Court  shall  direct,  and  to  which,  when  produced,  your  Orators 
for  greater  certainty  pray  leave  to  refer. 

And  your  Orators  further  shew  in  said  original  bill,  that  in  or  about  the  year 
1833  the  said  Associate  Congregation  of  Cambridge,  erected  and  built  upon 
the  said  real  estate  so  granted  to  them  as  herein  before  mentioned,  a  brick 
church  edifice  or  meeting  house  of  the  value  of  about  nine  thousand  dollars, 
and  that  previous  to  the  first  day  of  June,  in  the  year  1838,  the  said  Associate 
Congregation  of  Cambridge,  and  individual  members  thereof,  also  erected  and 
built  upon  the  said  premises  so  acquired  by  them  as  aforesaid,  the  necessary 
sheds  and  other  out  houses  for  the  accommodation  of  the  members  of  the  said 
Associate  Congregation  and  other  persons  attending  divine  worship  at  said 
church  edifice  or  meeting  house,  so  erected  and  built  by  said  Associate  Con- 
gregation as  aforesaid,  and  that  previous  to  the  day  and  year  last  aforesaid, 
the  said  Associate  Congregation  also  erected  and  built  upon  the  premises  afore- 
said, a  suitable  dwelling  house  with  the  necessary  out  buildings  connected 
therewith  for  the  use  and  occupation  of  the  pastor  or  minister  of  the  said  As- 
sociate Congregation  of  Cambridge. 

And  your  Orators  further  shew  in  said  original  bill,  that  the  said  real  estate 
so  granted  to  the  said  i^ssociate  Congregation  of  Cambridge  as  aforesaid  to- 
gether with  the  brick- church  edifice  or  meeting  house  and  other  buildings  so 
made  and  erected  thereon,  as  herein  before  mentioned,  is  now  of  the  value  of 
about  thirteen  thousand  dollars,  as  your  Orators  verily  believe. 

And  your  Orators  further  shew,  in  said  original  Bill,  that  the  said  Associ- 
ate Congregation  of  Cambridge,  have  also  acquired  considerable  personal 
property,  such  as  a  library,  furniture  for  the  clmrch  and  the  pulpit  thereof,  fire 
Avood  for  the  use  of  meeting  house,  &c.,  in  all  of  the  value  of  about  S450,  as 
your  Orators  believe. 

All  which  property,  both  real  and  personal,  was  obtained,  acquired  and  ac- 
cumulated by  the  said  Associate  Congregation  of  Cambridge,  and  ever  has 
been  and  still  is  held  by  the  Trustees  of  said  Congregation,  in  trust,  for  the 
sole  and  only  and  exclusive  jiurpose  of  being  devoted,  and  appropriated  solely 
and  exclusively  to  the  sui)port  and  maintenance  of  the  preaching  and  teaching 


25 

the  Gospel  and  the  administration  of  divine  ordinances  in  said  Associate 
Congregation  according  to  the  aforesaid  principles  of  faith  and  practice,  dis- 
cipline and  government  of  said  Associate  Chmxh  of  North  America — accor- 
ding to  which  principles  no  minister,  who  is  mider  sentence  of  excommunica- 
tion, can  be  permitted  to  occupy  the  pulpit  or  administer  divine  ordinances  in 
said  Associate  Congregation,  nor  can  any  member  of  said  Associate  Congre- 
gation hear  the  preaching,  and  receive  the  administration  of  divine  ordinances 
from  a  minister  under  sentence  of  excommunication,  without  violating  the 
solemn  vows,  which  they  took  upon  themselves  when  they  became  members 
of  said  Associate  Church — which  your  Orators  verily  and  most  conscientiously 
believe  would  be  sinful  in  the  sight  of  God. 

And  your  Orators  further  shew,  in  said  original  Bill,  that  on  or  about  the 
21st  day  of  November,  in  the  year  1826,  the  said  Associate  Congregation  of 
Cambridge,  was  duly  incorporated  under  and  by  virtue  of  the  statute  in  such 
case,  made  and  provided,  by  the  corporate  name,  style  and  description  of 
"  The  Associate  Congregation  of  Cambridge  of  the  County  of  Washington 
and  State  of  New- York,  adhering  to  the  principles  of  the  Associate  Presby- 
tery of  Pennsylvania,  formerly,  now  the  Associate  Synod  of  North  America," 
and  six  Trustees  were  then  elected  as  by  the  certificate  of  incorporation,  rec- 
orded in  the  Clerk's  office  of  the  County  of  Washington,  as  on  the  6th  day  of 
January,  in  the  year  1827,  or  an  authenticated  copy  thereof,  ready  to  be  pro- 
duced by  your  Orators,  will  more  fully  appear,  and  to  which,  when  produced, 
your  Orators  for  greater  certainty  pray  leave  to  refer. 

And  your  Orators  further  shew,  in  said  original  Bill,  that  said  Trustees 
have  been  divided  into  three  classes,  and  one  third  thereof  elected  yearly,  and 
every  year  since  the  incorporatoin  of  said  Associate  Congregation. 

And  your  Orators  fiu'ther  shew,  in  said  original  Bill,  that,  by  the  rules  and 
principles  of  the  faith  and  practice,  discipline  and  governrient  of  said  Asso- 
ciate Church,  the  Trustees  of  any  Congregation  thereof  have  no  power  or  au- 
thority to  call,  or  in  any  manner,  to  obtain  or  procure  a  minister  to  preach  or 
officiate  in  such  Congregation,  either  as  pastor  thereof,  or  temporarily,  or  even 
on  a  single  occasion — that  a  Clergyman  in  good  standing  and  in  full  commun- 
ion and  fellowship  with  said  Associate  Church,  can  only  be  called  to  the  office 
of  pastor  of  any  Congregation  of  said  Church  by  a  call  signed  by  the  elders 
and  members  of  such  Congregation  in  full  communion,  which  call  is  address- 
ed to  the  Clergyman  whom  the  Congregation  wish  to  call  as  their  pastor  is 
preferred  and  presented  to  the  Presbytery  to  which  such  Congregation  belongs. 
If  the  Presbytery  approve  of  the  call,  and  the  Clergyman  to  whom  it  is  ad- 
dressed, accepts  thereof,  he  is  ordained  and  installed  by  said  Presbytery  as  the 
pastor  of  said  Congregation,  but  if  the  Presbytery  do  not  assent  to  and  approve 
of  such  call,  such  Clergyman  cannot  become  the  pastor  of  such  Congrega- 
tion ;  when  the  wish  of  a  Congregation  is  to  have  the  office  or  place  of  pastor, 
temporarily  svipplied  the  elders  of  the  Congregation  petition  the  Presbytery  to 
which  they  belong  for  such  supply,  and  the  Presbytery  order  such  office  or 
place  of  pastor  of  such  Congregation,  to  be  supplied  for  such  length  of  time, 
and'by  such  Clergyman,  as  the  said  Presbytery  may  deem  proper.  It  is  ad- 
missible for  the  Session  of  the  Congregation  to  invite  a  minister  in  good 
standing  and  in  full  communion  with  said  Associate  Church,  to  preach  in  said 
Congregation,  for  one  or  two  Sabbaths,  as  the  exigencies  of  such  Congregation 
may  require,  but  in  no  other  way  or  manner  without  the  authority  of  Presby- 
tery or  Synod  can  the  pulpit  of  any  Congregation  of  said  Associate  Church 
be  filled  or  supplied,  either  permanently,  temporarily  or  otherwise. 

And  your  Orators   further   shew^   in  said  orierinal  Bill,  that  in  or  about  the 
4 


26 

year  1S08,  the  said  Associate  Cono;ror^ation  of  Cambridge,  in  the  County  of 
Washington,  called  the  Kev.  Alexander  Bullions  as  their  pastor  and  niinister, 
which  said  call  was  in  writing,  and  is  now  iu  the  possession  or  under  the  con- 
trol of  the  said  Alexander  Bullions,  as  your  Orators  believe,  and  charge  the 
fact  to  be,  and  which  they  pray,  he  may  be  required  to  produce  to  this  Honor- 
able Court,  and  which  was  in  the  words,  or  to  the  purport  and  ellect  following, 
that  is  to  say. 

Wc,  the  elders  and  other  members  of  the  Associate  Congregation  of  Cam- 
bridge, in  the  State  of  New-York,  in  full  communion,  Avho  liave  acceded  to 
the  Lord's  cause,  as  professed  and  maintained  by  the  Associate  Presbytery  of 
Cambridge,  as  subordinate  to  the  Associate  Synod  of  North  America  ;  taking 
into  our  serious  consideration  the  great  loss  we  sutTcr  through  the  want  of  a 
fixed  Gospel  ministry  among  us,  and  being  fully  satisfied  from  opportunities 
of  enjoying  your  public  ministrations,  that  the  great  head  of  the  Church  has 
bestowed  upon  you,  Mr.  Alexander  Bullions,  such  ministerial  gifts  and  endow- 
ments, as  through  the  divine  blessing  may  be  profitable  for  our  edification  ; 
we  therefore  hereby  call  and  beseech  you  to  come  to  us  and  help  us  by  taking 
the  charge  and  oversight  of  this  Congregation,  to  labor  in  it  and  watch  over 
it  as  our  fixed  pastor,  and  on  your  acceptance  of  this  our  call,  we  promise  you 
all  due  support,  respect,  encouragement  and  obedience  in  the  Lord. 

In  testimony  whereof,  &c. 

And  your  Orators  further  shew,  in  said  original  Bill,  that  such  call,  after  be- 
i»ig  signed  by  the  elders  and  members  of  said  Congregation  was  delivered  to 
and  received  and  accepted  by  the  said  Alexander  Bullions  through  the  hands 
of  the  said  Associate  Presbytery  of  Cambridge,  and  such  proceedings  were 
thereupon  had  that  the  said  Alexander  Bullions  was  ordained  and  installed  as 
the  pastor  and  minister  of  said  Associate  Congregation  of  Cambridge,  and  on 
such  ordination  and  installation,  one  of  his  vows  was  in  answering  affirmative- 
ly the  following  question.  "  Do  you  engage  to  submit  yourself  Avillingly  and 
"  humbly,  in  tlie  spirit  of  meekness,  to  the  admonitions  of  this  Presbytery  as 
"  subordinate  to  the  Associate  Synod  of  North  America,  remembering  that, 
"  while  they  act  uprightly,  they  judge  not  for  men,  but  for  the  Lord  who  is 
"  also  with  them  in  the  judgment,  and  do  you  promise  that  you  will  endeavor. 
"  to  maintain  the  spiritual  unity  and  peace  of  this  Church,  carefully  avoiding 
'^  every  divisive  course,  neither  yielding  to  those  who  have  made  defection 
"  from  the  truth,  nor  giving  yourself  up  to  a  detestable  neutrality  and  indiffer- 
"  ence  in  the  cause  of  God,  but  that  you  will  continue  steadfast  in  the  pro- 
"  fession  of  the  reformation  principles  maintained  by  us;  and  this  you  prom- 
"  ise  through  grace,  notwithstanding  any  trouble  or  persecution  you  may  be 
"  called  to  sufTer  in  studyina:  a  faithful  discharge  of  your  duty  in  these  mat- 
"ters?" 

And  in  said  original  Bill,  your  Orators  further  shew  that  the  said  Alexander 
Bullions  continued  to  be  tlie  pastor  of  the  said  Associate  Congregation  of 
Cambridge,  under  the  authority  and  government  of  the  Associate  Presbytery 
of  Cambridge,  until  after  a  series  of  delinquencies  and  misconduct  on  his 
part  and  a  regular  course  of  dealings  and  discipline  with  him  by  the  said  Pres- 
bytery of  Cambridge,  the  said  Presbytery,  on  or  about  the  12th  day  of  April, 
in  the  year  1S38,  at  South  Argyle,  being  then  and  there  duly  convened,  and 
met  pursuant  to  adjournment,  after  setting  forth  in  a  preamble  the  delinquen- 
cies and  unchristian  conduct  of  the  said  Alexander  Bullions,  and  the  course 
of  dealings  and  discipline  of  the  said  Presbytery  with  him  and  the  contumacy 
of  the  said  Alexander  Bullions  unanimously  passed  sentence  of  deposition  and 
excomunication  upon  him  in  the  words  following,  that  is  to  say. 


27 

Resolved,  That  he,  (the  said  Alexander  Bullions,)  be  deposed  from  the  of- 
fice of  the  holy  ministry  and  discharged  from  exercising  any  part  of  the  same, 
aye,  and  until  he  give  satisfactory  evidence  of  his  repentance  and  reformation 
— and  accordingly,  we,  the  Associate  Presbytery  of  Cambridge,  hereby  do,  in 
the  name  and  by  the  authority  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  depose  the  said  Alex- 
ander Bullions,  D.  D.,  from  the  office  of  the  holy  ministry,  and  prohibit  him 
from  exercising  any  part  of  the  same,  and  excommunicate  him  with  the  lesser 
sentence  of  excommunication  until  he  repent  and  return  to  his  duty  in  sub- 
mission to  Presbytery. 

And  your  Orators,  (by  like  leave,)  further  shew  by  way  of  amendment  to 
said  original  Bill,  that  the  said  Alexander  Bullions  was,  according  to  the  rules 
and  principles  of  the  faith  and  practice,  discipline  and  government  of  the  said 
Associate  Church,  duly  accused  before  the  said  Associate  Presbytery  of  Cam- 
bridge of  the  said  delinquencies  and  misconduct,  consisting  among  other  things 
of  falsehood,  slandering  his  brethren  in  the  ministry,  the  violation  of  solemn 
promises,  endeavoring  to  create  divisions  and  distractions  in  the  Church,  con- 
temning the  authority  of  Presbytery  himself,  and  endeavoring  to  bring  it  in- 
to disrepute  with  and  among  other  members  of  said  Associate  Church,  for 
which  he,  the  said  Alexander  Bullions,  after  a  full  and  patient  hearing  by  the 
said  Presbytery,  as  well  of  all  the  matters  which  the  said  Alexander  Bullions 
had  or  offered  to  urge  in  his  defence,  as  of  the  proofs  to  sustain  said  accusa- 
tion, was  dealt  with  and  finally  deposed  and  excommunicated  by  said  Presby- 
tery, as  is  in  that  behalf  in  the  said  original  Bill  stated  and  set  forth. 

And  in  said  original  Bill,  your  Orators  further  shew,  that  the  said  Alexan- 
der Bullions  has  not,  at  any  time  since  the  said  deposition  and  excommunica- 
tion, made  submission  to  the  said  Presbytery,  but  appealed  therefrom  to  the 
Synod,  and  on  or  about  the  first  day  of  June,  in  the  year  183S,  the  said  Asso- 
ciate Synod  of  North  America,  havinof  full  power  and  ample  Jurisdiction  to 
decide  upon  the  said  appeal,  proceeded  to  hear  and  determine  the  same,  and 
after  hearing  the  proofs  and  allegations  of  the  parties,  and  due  deliberation 
had  thereon,  the  said  Synod  decided  upon  the  said  appeal,  and  affirmed  the 
decision  of  Presbytery,  and  although  the  said  Alexander  Bullions  was  remitted 
to  the  Presbytery  of  Cambridge,  by  the  said  Synod  for  further  dealings,  yet 
the  said  Alexander  Bullions  has  never  appeared  before  the  said  Presbytery  of 
Cambridge,  although  cited  in  due  form  to  appear  before  them,  as  Vv-ill  appear 
by  reference  to  the  proceedings  of  said  Presbytery,  as  your  Orators  verily  be- 
lieve, but  has  persisted  and  still  does  persist  in  exercising  the  office  of  pastor 
and  minister  of  the  said  Associate  Congregation,  in  defiance  and  contempt  of 
the  authority  of  the  said  Associate  Presbytery  of  Cambridge  and  the  said  As- 
sociate Synod  of  North  America. 

And  in  said  original  Bill,  your  Orators  further  shew,  that  the  office  of  pastor 
and  minister  of  the  said  Associate  Congregation  was  formally  declared  vacant 
by  the  said  Associate  Presbytery  of  Cambridge,  and  that  deed  confirmed  by 
the  said  Associate  Synod  of  North  America  by  means  of  the  deposition  and 
excommunication  of  the  said  Alexander  Bullions,  as  herein  before  stated — 
and  the  Sj/nod  for  the  purpose  of  supplying  said  vacancy,  temporarily,  some- 
time during  its  session  in  the  month  of  May  or  June,  in  the  year  lSo8,  duly 
appointed  the  Rev.  Alexander  T.  McGill  and  the  Rev.  Joseph  McKie  as  com- 
missioners to  labor  for  a  short  season  in  the  said  Associate  Congregation  of 
Cambridge — and  said  commissioners  were  also  required  by  the  said  Synod,  to 
labor  with  the  said  Alexander  Bullions,  and  to  endeavor  to  bring  him  back  to 
his  duty  and  to  heal  the  divisions  between  him  and  the  said  Associate  Congre- 
gation— and  on  or  about  the  16th  day  of  June,  in  the  year  1838,  the  said  com- 


28 

missioncrs  appeared  ami  attended  at  Cambridorc  for  tlie  purpose  of  preaching; 
to  tlie  isaid  Associate  ConG^reiration,  and  performing  t]ie  duties  assigned  to  and 
imposed  upon  them  by  the  said  Synod.  But  James  Coulter,  James  Shiland, 
Robert  McClelland,  and  Peter  Hill,  being  a  majority  of  the  Trustees  of  the 
said  Associate  Congregation  of  Cambridge,  although  they  the  said  Trustees 
were  duly  notified  of  the  said  deposition  and  excommunication  of  the  said 
Alexander  Bullions,  and  were  also  duly  notified  and  informed  that  the  said 
Associate  Synod  had  declared  the  ofHce  of  pastor  of  the  said  Associate  Con- 
gregation vacant,  and  had  duly  appointed  tlie  said  commissioners  to  supply 
said  vacancy  as  herein  before  stated,  by  the  direction  and  at  the  request  and 
instigation  of  the  said  Alexander  Bullions,  as  your  Orators  are  informed  and 
believe,  shut  the  doors  of  the  said  meeting  house  of  the  said  Associate  Con- 
gregation, against  the  said  commissioners,  and  absolutely  refused  to  permit 
them,  or  either  of  them  to  occupy  the  pulpit  thereof,  or  to  preach  or  adminis- 
ter divine  ordinances  therein.  And  the  said  Trustees  have  permitted  and 
still  do  permit  the  said  Alexander  Bullions  to  occupy  the  pulpit  and  to  preach 
and  officiate  as  pastor  and  minister  in  the  said  church  edifice  or  meeting  house, 
so  as  aforesaid  erected  by  the  said  Associate  Congregation  of  Cambridge,  and 
sustain,  uphold  and  support  him  therein,  and  have  obtained  possession  of  some 
of  the  books  and  other  papers  containing  the  minutes  or  records  of  the  pro- 
ceedings, of  the  spiritualities  as  well  as  the  temporalities  of  said  Church,  and 
have  rented  or  pretended  to  rent  or  otherwise  appropriate  the  seats  or  pews  in 
said  church  edifice,  for  a  terra  of  five  years,  as  your  Orators  are  informed  and 
believe,  to  the  exclusion  of  your  Orators  and  the  other  members  of  the  said 
Associate  Congregation,  who  adhere  to  the  said  Associate  Presb3'tery  of  Cam- 
bridge and  the  said  Associate  Synod  of  North  America,  and  claim  to  and  do 
control  all  the  property,  real  and  personal,  of  the  said  Associate  Congregation, 
acquired  in  the  manner  and  for  the  pmpose  and  object  herein  before  stated, 
and  persist  in  diverting  it  from  those  uses  and  purposes,  and  in  appropriating  it 
to  the  maintenance  and  support  of  the  said  Alexander  Bullions,  and  of  his 
preachings  and  ministrations  as  pastor  and  minister,  notwithstanding  he  has 
been  legally  deposed  and  excommunicated  as  herein  before  stated — and  the 
said  Trustees  have  excluded  and  still  persist  in  excluding  clergymen  in  full 
communion  and  regular  standing  with  said  Associate  Presbytery  of  Cambridge 
and  the  said  Associate  Synod  of  North  America,  from  preaching  and  adminis- 
tering divine  ordinances  in  said  church  edifice  or  meeting  house — and  have 
also  excluded  and  do  still  exclude  your  Orators  and  the  other  members  of  the 
said  Associate  Congregation  Avho  adhere  to  the  principles  of  discipline  and 
Church  government  of  said  Associate  Church,  from  the  said  church  edifice  or 
meetinghouse,  unless  they  will  consent  to  sit  under  the  preaching,  teachings 
and  ministrations  of  a  deposed  and  excommunicated  minister. 

And  your  Orators,  (by  like  leave)  further  shew,  by  way  of  amendment,  that 
your  Orators  and  the  other  members  of  the  said  Associate  Congregation  of  Cam- 
bridge, who  adhere  to  the  said  Associate  Presbytery  and  the  said  Associ- 
ate Synod,  and  who  arc  opposed  to  tlie  divisive  and  disorganizing  course  and 
conduct  of  the  said  Alexander  Bullions,  in  contemning  the  authority  and  re- 
fusing submission  to  the  lawful  sentences  and  decrees  of  the  said  Judicatories 
of  the  said  Associate  Church,  compose  exclusively  the  said  Associate  Congre- 
gation of  Cambridge,  and  were  duly,  legally  and  canonically  adjudged,  de- 
clared and  decreed  so  to  be,  by  the  said  Associate  Presbytery  of  Cambridge, 
at  a  session  of  the  said  Presbytery,  duly  and  legally  convened  for  that  and 
other  purposes,  in  the  town  of  SaJcm,  in  the  County  of  Waaliiugton,  on  or 
about  the  27th  day  of  June,  1S38. 


29 

And  your  Orators  (by  like  leave)  further  shew  by  way  of  amendment,  that 
five  being  all  of  the  former  elders  of  said  Associate  Congregation  who  now 
adhere  to  the  said  Alexander  Bullions,  after  a  due  and  regular  course  of  deal- 
ing and  discipline  by  the  session  of  said  Associate  Congregation,  according  to 
the  rules  and  principles  of  faith,  discipline  and  government  of  said  Associate 
Chiurch  have  been  duly  suspended  or  excommunicated  with  the  lesser  sen- 
tence of  excommunication. 

And  your  Orators  (by  like  leave)  further  shew  by  way  of  supplement,  that 
since  the  filing  of  the  original  bill,  the  said  four  trustees,  defendants  and  other  of 
the  former  members  of  said  Associate  Congregation  Avho  now  adhere  to  the  said 
Alexander  Bullions,  after  a  due  and  regular  course  of  dealing  and  discipline  by 
the  Session  of  said  Associate  Congregation,  according  to  the  rules  and  primci- 
ples  of  faith,  discipline  and  government  of  said  Associate  Chm'ch,  have  been 
duly  suspended  or  excommunicated  with  the  lesser  sentence  of  excommunica- 
tion, and  all  the  other  persons  who  were  formerly  in  full  communion  with  As- 
sociate Congregation  and  members  thereof,  but  who  now  adhere  to  the  said 
Alexander  Bullions,  have  after  a  due  and  regular  course  of  proceedings  for  that 
purpose  by  said  Session,  been  duly  and  legally  suspended  from  the  commun- 
ion of  the  said  Associate  Church  until  trials  can  be  had  in  their  respective 
cases  upon  the  accusations  wherewith  they  are  charged  before  said  Session. 

And  your  Orators  (by  like  leave)  further  shew  by  way  of  amendment,  that  the 
Session  of  said  Associate  Congregation  by  whom  the  said  adherents  of  the 
said  Alexander  Bullions  have  thus  been  excommuntcated  and  suspended,  was 
in  all  things  duly,  legally  and  canonically  constituted  and  organized  according 
to  the  rules  of  faith,  discipline  and  government  of  said  Associate  Church,  and 
was  and  is  the  only  legally  constituted  Session  of  said  Associate  Congregation 
and  by  a  certain  act,  decree  or  decision  of  the  said  Associate  Presbytery  of 
Cambridge  on  or  about  the  27th  day  of  June,  1838,  was  duly  declared  and  re- 
cognized so  to  be,  which  act  or  decree  of  said  Associate  Presbytery,  still  re- 
mains in  full  force  and  effect,  and  according  to  the  principles  of  the  faith,  dis- 
ciple and  government  of  said  Associate  Church  is  binding  and  obligatory  up- 
on said  Associate  Congregation,  and  every  member  thereof,  and  upon  every 
member  of  said  Associate  Church. 

And  your  Orators  (by  like  leave,)  further  shew  by  way  of  amendment,  that 
according  to  the  rules  and  principles  of  the  faith  and  practice,  discipline  and 
government  of  said  Associate  Church,  none  of  said  persons  who  adhere  to  the 
said  Alexander  Bullions  are  members  of  said  Associate  Church  in  full  com- 
munion, nor  are  they  members  of,  nor  do  they  collectively  or  individually, 
compose,  any  part  of  the  said  Associate  Congregation  of  Cambridge,  or  of  any 
other  Congregation  adhering  to  the  said  Associate  Presbytery  of  Cambridge, 
or  to  any  other  of  the  ecclesiastical  judicatories  of  said  Associate  Church,  nor 
are  they  collectively  or  individually  recognized  by  any  of  the  judicatories  of 
said  Associate  Church  as  belonging  to  or  composing  any  part  of  any  Congre- 
gation in  communion  and  fellowship  with,  and  adhering  to  the  faith  and  prac- 
tice, discipline  and  government  of  said  Associate  Church,  that  as  your  Orators 
are  informed  and  believe  and  charge  the  truth  to  be  after  the  deposition  and 
excommunication  of  the  said  Alexander  Bullions  as  aforesaid,  on  or  about  the 
11th  day  of  June,  1838,  and  at  divers  other  times  the  said  Alexander  Bullions 
and  the  other  defendants,  and  the  other  adherents  to  the  said  Alexander  Bul- 
lions, abjured  and  repudiated  the  authority  of  the  said  Associate  Presbysery 
and  Synod  and  the  Presbyterian  form  of  church  government,  and  have  ever 
since  acted  and  still  continue  to  act  in  hostility  thereto  and  in  defiance  thereof, 
and  the  said  Trustees  instead  of  appropriating  the  said  property  of  the  said  As- 


30 

sociatc  CoiisrrcjTation  to  and  for  iho  uses  and  purposes  for  which  it  was  inten- 
ded, and  devoted  as  licreinaftcr  slated  and  set  furlh,  liave  appropriated  and 
still  continue  to  appropriate  it,  to  the  maintenance  and  support  of  the  preaching 
and  ministrations  of  the  said  Alexander  Bullions  who  is  not  a  minister  or  even 
a  memherof  said  Associate  Church,  without  the  consent  and  contrary  to  the 
wishes  of  the  said  Associate  Confrre£:^ation,  and  the  legally  constituted  Session 
thereof,  and  contrary  to  the  failh  and  practice,  discipline  and  government  of 
said  Associate  Church; — and  have  ajipropriated  and  still  continue  to  appropri- 
ate the  said  church  edifice  and  other  property  and  effects  which  belong  solely 
and  exclusively  to  the  Associate  Congregation  of  Cambridge,  adhering  to  the 
principles  of  the  Associate  Synod  of  North  America,  and  which  was  acquired 
for  and  devoted  to  the  uses  and  purposes  herein  before  stated,  to  the  use,  occu- 
pation and  benefit  of  the  said  Trustees  and  others  associated  and  combined 
with  them,  none  of  whom  are  in  communion  Avith,  or  members  of  said  Asso- 
ciate Congregation  of  Cambridge,  adhering  to  the  principles  of  the  said  As- 
sociate Syiiod,  or  of  any  Congregation  adhering  to  or  recognized  by  any  of 
the  judicatories  of  said  Associate  Church,  to  the  entire  exclusion  of  the  said 
Associate  Congregation  of  Cambridge,  adhering  to  the  principles  of  the  said 
Associate  Synod,  and  in  full  communion  with  said  Associate  Church. 

And  your  Orators  in  their  original  Bill  further  shew,  that  the  said  James  Coul- 
ter, James  Shiland,  Kobert  McClelland,  and  Peter  Hill,  the  said  four  Trustees 
herein  before  named,  together  Avith  William  Stevenson  and  William  Rob- 
ertson, two  of  your  Orators,  since  the  first  day  of  April,  in  the  year  1S3S,  have 
been  and  still  are  the  Trustees  of  the  said  Associate  Congregarion  of  Cam- 
bridge, and  that  the  said  Jam_es  Coulter,  James  Shiland,  Robert  McClelland 
and  Peter  Hill  are  adherents  and  supporters  of  the  said  Alexander  Bullions, 
and  they  together  with  the  said  Alexander  Bullions  and  the  said  corporation 
are  the  Defendants  hereinafter  named. 

And  your  Orators  in  their  original  Bill  further  shew,  that  they  have  frequent- 
ly and  in  a  friendljr  manner  in  behalf  of  themselves  and  the  other  members 
of  the  said  Associate  Congregation  of  Cambridge,  who  adhere  to  the  said  As- 
sociate Presbytery  of  Cambridge,^  and  to  the  Associate  Synod  of  North  Amer- 
ica, applied  to  the  said  Alexander  Bullions  to  desist  from  preaching  or  admin- 
istering divine  ordinances  in  the  said  church  edifice  or  meeting  house  of  the 
said  Associate  Congregation  of  Cambridge,  and  to  the  said  James  Coulter, 
James  Shiland,  Robert  McClelland  and  Peter  Hill,  four  of  the  Trustees  of  the 
said  Associate  Congregation,  to  exclude  the  said  Alexander  Bullions  from 
preaching  in  the  said  church  edifice  or  meeting  house  aforesaid,  and  requested 
thera  to  permit  Clergymen,  in  regular  standing  and  full  communion  with  the 
said  Associate  Presbytery  of  Cambridge  and  the  said  Associate  Synod  of 
North  America,  to  preach  and  administer  divine  ordinances  in  the  said  church 
edifice  or  meeting-house,  and  to  permi:  your  Orators  and  the  other  members  of  the 
.said  Assoctate  Congregation,  who  adhere  to  the  principles  of  faith  and  prac- 
tice, discipline  and  government  of  said  Associate  Church  to  occupy  the  edifice 
or  meeting-house  for  that  purpose,  and  requested  the  said  Trustees  to  desist 
and  refrain  from  diverting  and  misapplying  the  property  and  funds  of  the  said 
Associate  Congregation  or  any  part  thereof  to  the  support  of  the  said  Alexan- 
der Bullions,  or  to  the  aid  or  support  of  the  preaching  of  the  said  Alexander 
Bullions,  and  to  devote  and  appropriate  the  said  property  and  funds  of  the 
said.  Associate  Congregation,  and  to  direct  and  administer  the  affairs  of  the 
said  corporation,  according  to  the  uses,  trusts,  purposes  and  objects,  for  which 
the  same  were  intended  by  the  founders  thereof,  as  herein  before  stated,  with 
which  reasonable  requests  your  Orators  had  well  hoped  the  said  Defendants 


31 

would  have  complied,  as  in  equity   and  good  conscience   they  ought  to  have 
done. 

But  now  so  it  is,  may  it  please  your  Honor  that  the  said  Defendants  com- 
bining and  confederating  together  and  to  and  with  divers  other  persons  at 
present  unknown  to  your  Orators,  but  whose  names,  Avhen  discovered,  your 
Orators  pray,  may  be  herein  inserted  with  apt  and  proper  words  to  charge 
them  as  parties  Defendants  hereto,  to  injure  and  oppress  your  Orators  and  the 
other  members  of  the  said  Associate  Congregation,  who  adhere  to  the  prin- 
ciples of  faith  and  practice,  discipline  and  government  of  the  said  Associate 
Church,  in  the  premises,  do  absolutely  refuse  to  comply  with  the  aforesaid  re- 
quests of  }-our  Orators. 

For  reason  whereof,  the  said  Defendants  sometimes  pretend  that  the  Trus- 
tees of  the  said  Associate  Congregation  of  Cambridge,  having  the  possession 
and  control  of  the  temporalities  thereof,  a  majority  of  them  have  a  right  to 
appropriate  the  property  and  effects  thereof  to  the  maintenance  of  any  pastor 
or  minister,  and  to  the  support  of  any  christian  preaching  and  teaching  in  said 
Congregation  they  may  think  proper. 

Whereas  your  Orators  charge  the  contrary  of  such  pretence  to  be  the  truth, 
and  your  Orators  also  expressly  charge  that  the  Trustees  of  the  said  Associate 
Congregation  cannot,  without  a  violation  of  their  duty  and  trust,  appropriate 
the  property  and  effects  thereof,  to  any  other  use  or  purpose  than  that  for  which 
it  was  originally  intended,  to  wit :  to  the  maintenance  and  support  of  the 
teaching  and  preaching  of  the  Gospel  and  the  administration  of  divine  ordi- 
nances in  the  said  Associate  Congregation,  according  to  the  principles  of  faith 
and  practice,  discipline  and  government  of  the  said  Associate  Church,  which 
can  only  be  done  by  a  minister  or  pastor  in  full  communion  and  good  standing 
with  the  said  Associate  Presbytery  of  Cambridge  and  the  said  Associate  Sy- 
nod of  North  America. 

And  at  other  times,  although  the  said  Defendants  admit  that  the  said  Alex- 
ander Bullions  was  deposed  and  excommunicated  by  the  said  Synod,  as  herein 
before  stated,  yet  then  they  pretend  that  since  such  deposition  and  excommu- 
nication, he  the  said  Alexander  Bullions,  has  been  in  all  things  restored  to 
good  standing  in  said  Associate  Church  by  the  Associate  Presbytery  of  the 
State  of  Vermont. 

Whereas  your  Orators  charge  the  contrary  of  such  pretence  to  be  the  truth, 
and  your  Orators  also  expressly  charge  and  aver  that  the  said  Presbytery  of 
Vermont  were  and  are  wholly  and  totally  incompetent  to  restore  the  said  Alex- 
ander Bullions,  as  well  because  the  said  Presbytery  had  no  jurisdiction  what- 
ever in  the  matter,  as  the  said  Alexander  Bullions  was  and  is  under  the  juris- 
diction of  the  Associate  Presbytery  of  Cambridge,  and  cannot  be,  at  the  same 
time  under  two  contradictory  valid  deeds,  as  because  the  said  two  ministers 
who  alone  with  their  ruling  elders,  compose  the  said  Presbytery  of  Vermont, 
were  and  are  relations  of  the  said  Alexander  Bullions,  by  marriage,  one  being 
the  brother-in-law- and  the  otherbeing  a  son-in-law  of  the  said  Alexander  Bul- 
lions. And  that  in  consequence  of  such  relationship,  the  said  two  ministers  who 
alone  were  the  only  ministerial  members  that  compose  the  said  Presbytery  of 
Vermont,  were  excluded  from  voting  or  taking  any  part  in  the  proceedings  of 
the  said  Associate  Presbytery  of  Cambridge,  upon  the  said  trial  of  the  said- 
Alexander  Bullions,  before  said  Associate  Presbytery — the  said  Thomas  Good- 
willie  and  William  Pringle  at  that  time  being  members  of  said  Associate 
Presbytery  of  Cambridge. 

And  your  Orators,  (by  like  leave,)  further  charge,  by  way  of  supplement, 
that  since  the  filing  of  the  said  original  Bill,  and  on  or  about  the  25th  day  of  May, 


32 

in  the  year  1S39,  at  a  rcpfular  annual  mcpting  of  Uio  said  Associate  Synod  of 
North  Ainorifa,  duly  conveiifd  at  Pittsburi,Mi,iii  thr  State  of  Pennsylvania,  njion 
the  act  or  deed  of  the  said  Presl)ytery  of  Vermont,  restoring  tlie  said  Alexander 
Bullions  to  the  ofllce  of  the  ministry  and  to  full  standings  in  said  Associate 
Chm'ch,  beinif  'duly  and  legally  ljroui;-lit  before  said  Synod  by  the  complaint 
of  the  said  Associate  Presbytery  of  Cambridge,  and  the  facts  in  relation  there- 
to, beinjT  diil}''  proved  by  the  Report  of  said  Presliytery  of  Vermont,  and  other 
ecclesiastical  evidence  to  said  Associate  Synod — the  said  Associate  Synod  af- 
ter mature  deliberation  upon  the  premises,  by  an  act,  deed,  decision  or  decree 
of  Synod,  did  resolve,  adjudge  and  declare,  among  other  things,  in  substance 
and  eOeirt,  that  the  conduct  of  the  said  Presbytery  of  Vermont,  in  the  said 
restoration  of  the  said  Alexander  Bullions  was  a  contempt  of  the  authority  of 
Synod,  a  solemn  mockery  and  ])erversion  of  the  divine  institution  of  Church 
government,  and  was  not  only  illegal  and  unconstitutional,  but  disreputable 
to  the  ministerial  and  christian  character  of  the  brethren  themselves  of  that 
Presbytery,  and' calculated  directly  to  injure  religion.  That  it  was  a  most  dis- 
orderly and  irregular  attempt  to  usm-p  the  prerogative  of  a  co-ordinate  Pres- 
bytery, and  to  destroy  all  order  and  governmentj  in  the  Church — that  it  was 
trilling  with  and  in  direct  violation  of  their  ordination  vows — was  unbrotherly 
towards  the  Presbytery  of  Cambridge,  and  directly  calculated  to  disrupt  all 
fraternal  feeling — that  said  conduct  of  the  said  Presbytery  of  Vermont  during 
the  first  year  of  their  Presbyterial  existence,  rendered  it  evident  to  Synod, 
that  it  was  for  the  present  unsafe  to  commit  to  them  the  Presbyterial  oversight 
of  that  section  of  the  Church,  Avhich  the  said  Synod  had  committed  to  their 
care,  and  that  said  Presbytery  of  Vermont  be  suspended  from  the  exercise  of 
Presbyterial  authority  until  the  next  meeting  of  Synod,  and  that  those  breth- 
ren and  all  the  congregations,  settled  and  vacant,  under  their  oversight,  be 
committed  to  the  care  of  the  said  Associate  Presbytery  of  Cambridge  until  the 
next  meeting  of  Synod — that  the  deeds  of  the  said  Associate  Presbytery  of 
Vermont,  restoring  the  said  Alexander  Bullions  to  the  office  of  the  ministry 
and  the  communion  of  the  Church,  and  admitting  him  as  a  member  of  that 
Presbytery,  were  null  and  void  from  the  beginning — as  by  the  records  or 
minutes  of  the  proceedings  of  said  Synod  will  more  fully  and  at  large  appear. 
And  in  said  original  Bill,  your  Orators  further  charge  that  the  said  defend- 
ants, at  other  times  pretend  that  the  said  Alexander  Bullions  is  willing  to  sub- 
mit to  the  authority  of  the  said  Associate  Presbytery  of  Cambridge  and  to  the 
said  Associate  Synod  of  North  America,  and  adhere  to  and  abide  by  the  judg- 
ments and  decisions  thereof — and  this  pretended  willingness,  they  insist  au- 
thorities them  to  continue  the  said  Alexander  Bullions  as  pastor  or  minister  of 
the  said  Associate  Congregation  of  Cambridge,  notwithstanding  he  had  been 
deposed   and  excommunicated,  as  herein  before  stated. 

Whereas  your  Orators  charge  tlie  contrary  of  such  pretence  to  be  the  trutli, 
and  they  also  charge  and  aver  that  the  said  Alexander  Bullions  has,  as  youx 
Orators  are  informed  and  believe,  repeatedly  declared  in  substance  and  ef- 
fect, that  he  would  never  submit  to  the  authority  of  the  said  Associate  Pres- 
bytery, or  would  not  belong  to  it  one  hour  even  if  it  should  restore  him  imme- 
diately, and  such  your  Orators  believe  to  be  the  intention  and  fixed  determi- 
nation of  the  said  Alexander  Bullions. 

And  your  Orators  also  charge,  aver  and  insist  that  that  if  the  said  last  men- 
tioned pretence  of  the  said  Defendants  were  true,  it  could  give  the  Defendants 
nu  right  or  authority  whatever  to  permit  the  said  Alexander  Bullions  to  preach 
in  said  church  edifice  or  meeting-house  of  the  said  Associate  Congregation,  or 
U)  admiaister  divine  ordinances  of  any  description  therein,  or  to  appropriate 


33 

the  property  and  cflccts  of  the  said  Associate  Congregation  to  the  support  of 
the  preachings  and  ministrations  of  the  said  Alexander  Bullions;  that  the 
said  sentence  of  the  said  Associate  Presbytery  and  said  Associate  Synod,  de- 
posing and  excommunicating  the  said  Alexander  Bullions,  as  aforesaid,  must 
be,  in  due  form,  legally  rescinded,  and  he  restored,  or  he  make  confession,  and 
thus  be  restored  to  full  communion  and  fellowship  with  the  said  Associate 
Presbytery  of  Cambridge  and  said  Associate  Synod  of  North  America,  before 
he  can  act  as  pastor  or  minister  of  said  Associate  Congregation  ef  Cambridge 
or  of  any  other  Congregation  of  the  said  Associate  Church,  and  also  before 
he  can  legally  officiate  as  pastor  of  said  Associate  Congregation  of  Cambridge, 
he  must  be  reinstalled  to  the  pastoral  charge  of  the  same,  according  to  the 
rules  and  practice,  discipline  and  government  of  said  Associate  Church. 

And  your  Orators,  by  like  leave,  further  shew,  by  way  of  supplement,  that 
they  are  informed,  and  believe  that,  since  the  filing  of  the  original  Bill,  that 
said  Defendants  pretend  that  the  said  decision,  deed  or  decree  of  the  said  As- 
sociate Synod,  affirming  the  sentence  of  the  said  Associate  Presbytery  of  Cam- 
bridge, deposing  and  excommunicating  the  said  Alexander  Bullions  was  not 
final,  but  was  to  be  reviewed  or  further  considered  at  the  next  succeeding 
meeting  of  said  Synod,  and  that  the  said  Alexander  Bullions  had  a  right  to 
officiate  as  minister  and  pastor  in  said  Associate  Church,  until  the  final  judg- 
ment or  decision  of  the  S}'nod  should  be  had  in  the  premises,  notwithstanding 
the  said  sentence  of  deposition  and  excommunication  by  the  said  Associate 
Presbytery  of  Cambridge. 

Whereas  your  Orators  charge  the  contrary  of  such  pretence  to  be  the  truth, 
and  your  Orators  expressly  charge  that  the  deed,  sentence  or  decree  of  the 
said  Associate  Synod,  affirming  said  sentence  of  said  Associate  Presbytery  of 
Cambridge,  was  final  and  conclusive  and  not  subject  to  any  review,  reconsid- 
eration or  furtlwir  consideration,  at  the  instance  or  motion  of  either  the  Defen- 
dants or  minority  of  the  Court.  And  the  said  Associate  Synod,  at  its  session 
held  at  Pittsburgh  aforesaid,  on  the  22d  day  of  May,  1839,  did  so  adjudge 
and  declare,  and  did  refuse  in  any  manner  to  modify,  reconsider,  or  further 
consider  its  act,  adjudication  or  decree,  affirming  the  said  sentence  of  the  said 
Associate  Presbytciy  of  Cambridge,  deposing  and  excommunicating  the  said 
Alexander  Bullions,  and  remitting  him  to  the  said  Associate  Presbytery  of 
Cambridge  for  further  dealing  and  discipline,  as  herein  before  stated. 

All  which  actings,  doings  and  pretences  of  the  said  Defendants,  your  Orators 
averred  in  their  original  Bill,  and  herein  aver  were  and  are  contrary  to  equity 
and  good  conscience,  and  tend  to  the  manifest  wrong,  injury  and  oppression  of 
your  Orators  and  the  other  members  of  the  said  Associate  Congregation  who 
adhere  to  the  principles  of  faith  and  practice,  discipline  and  government  of  the 
said  Associate  Church,  in  the  premises. 

In  tender  consideration  whereof,  and  forasmuch  as  your  Orators  are  remedi- 
less in  the  premises,  at  and  by  the  direct  and  stated  rules  of  the  common  law, 
and  cannot  obtain  adequate  relief  save  in  a  Court  of  equity,  where  matters  of 
this  and  the  like  nature  are  properly  cognizable  and  relievable. 

To  the  end,  therefore,  that  the  said  Defendants  and  their  confederates  when 
discovered,  may  upon  their  several  and  respective  corporal  oaths,  full,  true, 
direct  and  perfect  answers  make  to  all  and  singular,  the  matters  and  things 
in  the  said  Original  Bill,  and  herein  before  stated  and  charged  as  fully  and 
particularly  in  every  respect  as  if  the  same  were  here  again  repeated,  and  they 
thereto  severally  and  specifically  interrogated,  paragraph  by  paragraph,  and 
that  they  so  answer  not  only  as  to  the  best  and  utmost  of  their  several  and 
respective  knowledge  and  remembrance,  but  also  as  to  the  best  and  utmost  of 


-<-' 


34 

llicir  several  and  respective  infornialion,  hearsay  and  belief,  and  that  they  may 
answer  speciiically  all  and  singular  the  premises  albresaid,  with  dates,  sums, 
and  all  attending  circumstances. 

And  your  Orators  prayed  in  their  origuial  Bill,  and  herein  praj',  that  the 
said  Defendants,  James  Coulter,  James  Shiland,  Kobert  McClelland  and  Peter 
Hill,  may  be  compelled  by  a  decree  of  this  Honorable  Court,  to  permit  clergy- 
men in  good  standing  and  full  connnunion  with  the  said  Associate  Presbytery 
of  Cambridge  and  the  said  Associate  Synod  of  North  America,  and  who  ad- 
here to  the  principles  of  faith,  discipline  and  government  of  the  said  Associate 
Church,  to  preach,  teach  and  administer  divine  ordinances  according  to  the 
established  and  received  doctrines  of  the  said  Associate  Church,  to  the  said 
Associate  Congregation  of  Cambridge  in  the  aforesaid  church  edifice  or  meet- 
ing house,  and  to  appropriate  the  funds,  property  and  efl'ects  of  the  said  Asso- 
ciate Congregation  or  Corporation  to  the  support  or  maintenance  of  such  preach- 
ing, teaching  and  ministration,  and  to  none  other.  And  that  they,  together 
Avith  the  said  Defendant,  Alexander  Bullions,  may  be  required  to  come  to  a 
full,  just  and  fair  accounting  of  the  said  property,  funds  and  effects,  and  of  the 
proceeds  and  income  thereof,  since  the  time  of  the  deposition  and  excommu- 
nication of  the  said  Alexander  Bullions — that  the  said  four  Trustees,  Defen- 
dants, be  removed  from  their  said  office  of  Trustees,  for  their  misconduct  and 
breach  of  trust,  and  that  their  places  be  supplied  in  such  manner  as  this  Hon- 
orable Court  shall  direct,  and  that  they  the  said  four  Trustees,  and  each  of 
them  be  required  to  deliver  to  the  Trustees  thus  to  be  appointed,  or  to  such 
other  person  or  olficers  as  this  Honorable  Court  shall  direct,  all  and  singular, 
the  books,  property  and  effects  of  said  Associate  Congregation — and  that  in 
the  meantime,  the  said  Defendant,  Alexander  Bullions  may  be  restrained  and 
enjoined  by  the  order  and  injunction  of  this  Honorable  Court  from  preaching, 
teaching,  or  in  any  manner  officiating  as  pastor  or  minister  in«he  said  church 
edifice  or  meeting  house  of  the  said  Associate  Congregation,  and  from  inter- 
meddling in  any  manner  with  the  temporalities  and  spiritualities  of  said  As- 
sociate Congregation — and  that  the  said  four  Trustees,  Defendants,  may  in 
like  manner  be  restrained  and  enjoined  from  permitting  the  said  Alexander 
Bullions  to  preach,  teach,  or  in  any  manner  administer  divine  ordinances  in 
said  church  edifice  or  meeting  house,  so  as  aforesaid  belonging  to  the  said 
Associate  Congregation  of  Cambridge,  and  from  appropriating  or  in  any  man- 
ner disposing  of  the  funds,  property  and  effects  of  the  said  Associate  Congre- 
gation, for  any  other  purpose  or  object  than  that  of  the  support  and  mainten- 
ance of  a  pastor  or  minister  in  regular  standing  and  in  full  communion  with, 
the  saii  Associate  Presbyter)^  of  Cambridge,  subordinate  to  the  said  Associate 
Synod  of  North  America,  duly  called,  sent  and  inducted  as  pastor  of  said  As- 
sociate Congregation,  according  to  the  rules  and  principles  of  faith  and  prac- 
tice, discipline  and  government  of  said  Associate  Church.  And  that  your 
Orators  may  have  su'ch  further  relief  or  such  other  and  further  relief  in  the 
premises,  as  the  nature  and  circumstances  of  this  case  may  require,  and  as 
may  be  agreeable  to  equity  and  good  conscience. 

May  it  please  your  Honor,  the  premises  considered,  to  grant  unto  your  Ora- 
tors the  People's  writ  of  Injunction,  issuing  out  of  and  under  the  seal  of  this 
Honorable  Court,  to  be  directed  to  the  said  Alexander  Bullions,  James  Coulter, 
James  Shiland,  Robert  McClelland  and  Peter  Hill,  their  counsellors,  attorneys, 
solicitors  and  agents,  commanding  the  said  Alexander  Bullions  that  he  abso- 
lutely  desist  and  refrain  from  preaching,  teaching,  or  in  any  manner  officiating 
as  pastor  or  minister  in  the  said  church  edifice  or  meeting  ho\ise  of  the  said 
Associate  Congregation  of  Cambringe,  or  from  intermeddling  in  any  manner 


35 

with  the  temporalities  or  spiritualities  of  said  Associate  Conj^refTation — and 
commanding-  the  said  James  Couher,  James  Shiland,  Robert  McClelland  and 
Peter  Hill,  and  each  of  them,  absolutely  to  desist  and  refrain  from  permitting 
the  said  Alexander  Bullions,  or  any  other  minister  not  in  regular  standino-  and 
full  communion  with  the  said  Associate  Church,  and  Avho  shall  be  called  to 
officiate  as  pastor  of  said  Associate  Congregation,  according  to  the  rules  and 
principles  of  faith  and  practice,  discipline  and  government  of  said  Associate 
Church,  to  preach,  teach,  or  in  any  manner  administer  divine  ordinances  in 
said  church  edifice  or  meeting  house  of  the  said  Associate  Congregation  of 
Cambridge,  and  from  appropriating  or  in  any  manner  disposing  of  the  funds, 
property  or  effects  of  the  said  Associate  Congregation  for  any  other  purpose 
or  object  whatsoever  than  that  of  the  support  and  maintenance  of  a  pastor  or 
minister  for  said  Associate  Congregation,  in  regular  standing  and  full  commu- 
nion with  the  said  Associate  Presbytery  of  Cambridge,  and  the  said  Associate 
Synod  of  North  America — and  from  preventing  or  in  any  manner  interferino- 
with  the  occupation  of  the  said  church  edifice,  by  your  Orators  and  the  other 
members  of  the  said  Associate  Congregation,  adhering  to  the  said  Associate 
Presbytery  and  the  said  Associate  Sjmod,  for  the  purpose  of  hearino-  divine 
ordinances  administered  therein,  according  to  the  principles  of  faith  and  prac- 
tice, discipline  and  government  of  the  said  Associate  Church  until  the  further 
order  of  this  Honorable  Court  in  the  premises. 

May  it  also  please  your  Honor,  to  grant  unto  your  Orators  the  People's  writ 
of  Subpoena,  issuing  out  of  and  under  the  seal  of  this  Honorable  Court,  to  be 
directed  to  the  said  Alexander  Bullions,  James  Coulter,  James  Shiland,  Rob- 
ert McClelland  and  Peter  Hill,  and  the  Associate  Congregation  of  Cambridge 
of  the  County  of  Washington,  and  State  of  New  York,  adhering  to  the  prin- 
ciples of  the  Associate  Presbytery  of  Pennsylvania  formerly,  now  the  Asso- 
ciate Synod  of  North  America,  commanding  them,  and  each  of  them,  to  ap- 
pear before  your  Honor,  in  this  Honorable  Court,  according  to  the  rules  and 
practice  thereof,  then  and  there  to  answer  the  premises  and  to  stand  to,  abide 
by  and  perform  such  order,  direction  and  decree  therein,  as  shall  be  ao-reeable 
to  equity  and  good  conscience.     And  your  Orators  shall  ever  pray,  &c. 

John  Crary,  Solicitor  WILLIAM  STEVENSON, 

For  Complainants.  WILLIAM  ROBERTSON, 

S.  Stevens,  of  Counsel.  WILLIAM  McGEOCH, 

EDWARD  SMALL, 
JOHN  McARTHUR, 
PETER  McARTHUR, 
JAMES  ARNOT, 
JOHN  ROBERTSON, 
THOMAS  McMORRIS, 
JAMES  HOY. 

State  of  New  York,  :  On  this  22d  day  of  January,  1S40,  before  me, 
Washington  County,  SS.  :  personally  appeared  William  Stevenson,  William 
Robertson,  William  McGeoch,  Edward  Small,  John  McArthur,  Peter  McAr- 
thur,  James  Arnot,  John  Robertson,  Thomas  McMorris,  and  James  Hoy,  ten 
of  the  complainants  named  in  the  foregoing  Bill  of  complaint,  and  severally 
made  Oath,  that  they  have  severally  heard  the  said  Bill  of  complaint  by  them 
subscribed,  read,  and  know  the  contents  thereof,  and  that  the  same  is  true,  of 
their  own  knowledge,  except  as  to  the  matters  which  are  therein  stated  to  be 
on  the  information  or  belief  of  the  said  complainants,  and  as  to  those  matters, 
they  believe  it  to  be  true.  MARINUS  FAIRCHILD, 

Examiner  in  Chanccnj. 


IN    CHANCERY: 

The  joint  and  several  answers  and  demurrer  of  the  Associate  Congregation 
of  Cambridge,  of  tlie  County  of  Washington,  adhering  to  tlie  principles  of  the 
Associate  Presbytery  of  Pennsylvania  formerly,  now  the  Associate  Synod  of 
North  America,  who  are  impleaded  with  Alexander  Bullions,  James  Coulter, 
James  Shiland,  Kobert  McClelland  and  Peter  Hill,  Trustees  of  the  Associate 
Congregation  of  Cambridge,  Defendants  to  the  original  Bill  of  complaint  of 
William  Stevenson,  William  Robertson,  William  McGeoch,  Edward  Small, 
John  McArthur,  James  McArthur,  Robert  McArthur,  Peter  McArthur,  George 
Small,  John  Arnott,  James  Arnott,  Edward  Cook,  John  Robertson,  Thomas 
McMorriss,  James  Hoy,  John  McDoul,  Isaac  Ashton,  John  Foster  and  William 
Livingston,  Complainants.  These  Defendants,  now  and  at  all  times  forever 
hereafter  saving  and  reserving  to  themselves  all  advantage  and  benefit  of  ex- 
ception to  the  many  errors  and  imperfections  contained  in  the  said  bill  of  com- 
plaint of  the  said  Complainants  for  answer  thereto  or  to  as  much  thereof  as 
they  are  advised  is  material  for  them  to  make  answer,  they  answering  admit, 
that  the  Complainants  mentioned  and  named  in  the  said  bill  of  complaint,  did 
on  or  about  the  20th  day  of  March,  1839,  file  their  original  Bill  in  this  Hon- 
orable Court  against  the  Defendants  therein  named  as  stated  in  said  bill  of 
complaint. 

And  these  Defendants  further  answering  admit  that  the  said  Defendants 
having  been  served  with  process  to  appear  in  said  suit,  appeared  by  their  soli- 
citor but  no  copy  of  the  Complainants'  bill  having  been  ever  served  on  said 
Defendants'  solicitor,  the  said  Defendants  have  put  in  no  answer  to  said  ori- 
ginal Bill  of  complaint. 

And  these  Defendants  further  in  answering,  say  that  they  have  been  inform- 
ed and  believe  and  admit  that  on  the  6th  day  of  April,  1839,  leave  Avas  grant- 
ed by  this  Honorable  Court  to  said  Complainants  to  file  a  suplemental  bill  in 
said  cause  with  leave  to  insert  therein  such  amendatory  matter  as  they  might 
be  advised  was  material  without  prejudice  to  the  rights  of  the  said  Defendants, 
or  either  of  them  to  demur  to  the  said  supplemental  bill  or  any  matters  con- 
tained therein  if  they  should  be  advised  so  to  do  in  the  manner  as  stated  in 
said  bill  of  complaint. 

And  these  Defendants  in  further  answering  said  original  Bill,  say  that  they 
admit  that  in  or  about  the  year  1754,  the  sect  or  denomination  of  christians 
known  in  common  parlance  as  the  Associate  Church  of  North  America,  but 
which  is  now  styled  and  called  in  the  minutes  and  records  of  the  proceedings 
of  said  Church,"  The  Associate  Synod  of  North  America,"  and  according  to 
the  principles  which  originally  founded  said  Church  organized  as  a  Church,  in  the 
then  province  of  Pennsylvania,  under  the  inspection,  superintendence  and  care  of 
the  Associate  Synod  of  Scotland — that  said  sect  had  its  origin  in  orabout  theyear 
1733  as  these  Defendants  are  informed  and  believe — that  it  was  founded  by  the 
Rev.  EbenezerErskine  and  three  others,  who  had  previously  belonged  to  and  form- 
ed a  part  of  the  Synod  of  Perth  and  Sterling  of  the  General  Assembly  of 
Scotland — that  in  consequence  of  the  preaching  of  a  sermon  by  the  said  Rev. 
Mr.  Erskine  before  the  said  Synod  of  Perth  and  Sterling,  he  was  condemned 


37 

by  said  Synod  and  declared  worthy  of  censure,  and  because  he  would  not  re- 
tract by  submitting  to  a  rebuke  for  what  he  had  said,  and  to  an  admonition 
warning  him  to  speak  so  no  more,  and  because  he  with  his  three  brethren  pro- 
tested against  said  decision,  and  appealed  to  the  first  enlightened  and  reform- 
ed Synod,  they  were  suspended  from  the  ministry  of  the  Gospel  by  said  Syn- 
od— that  they  continued  to  preach  however  under  their  protest  until  in  Decem- 
ber, 1736,  they  finally  founded  and  formed  the  said  Associate  Church  under 
said  censure  and  suspension  claiming  the  right  of  conscience  to  judge  for 
themselves  as  to  the  justice  or  right  of  ecclesiastical  censures,  and  to  protest 
against  them  and  to  continue  their  ministry  they  were  finally  deposed  by  the 
General  Assembly,  that  this  right  of  protest  against  the  decisions  of  their  ec- 
clesiastical coiu'ts  has  ever  been  claimed  by  their  followers  in  Scotland  as  well 
as  in  America,  as  and  is  in  fact  one  of  the  foundation  principles  of  said  Church 
and  one  of  the  corner  stones  of  its  organization. 

And  these  Defendants  insist  and  aver  that  one  of  the  main  principles  estab- 
lished and  adopted  by  the  founders  of  said  Church,  and  which  has  been  ever 
since  received  and  believed  and  exercised  as  such  among  its  members,  is  that 
Church  courts  may  be  and  frequently  are  fallible,  that  they  have  erred  and 
frequently  do  err,  and  that  their  decisions  are  to  be  regarded  only  when  they 
agree  with  the  word  of  God,  and  the  received  and  known  principles  of  the 
Church,  and  that  left  to  the  conscience  and  sincere  belief  of  the  individual 
passing  under  their  judgment. 

And  these  Defendants  further  answering  said  original  Bill,  admit  that  the 
several  congregations  of  said  Church  at  or  about  the  time  of  said  organization 
in  1754,  by  the  authority  of  said  Synod,  constituted  and  organized  a  Presby- 
tery, which  was  styled  "  The  Associate  Presbytery  of  Pennsylvania,"  and 
which  was  then  subordinate  to  the  said  Associate  Synod  of  Scotland. 

And  these  Defendants  further  in  answering  said  original  Bill,  admit  that  in 
or  about  the  year  1784,  sundry  individuals  of  the  town  of  Cambridge  and  oth- 
er adjacent  towns  in  the  State  of  New  York,  professing  the  tenets,  principles 
and  faith  of  the  said  Associate  Church,  petitioned  the  said  Associate  Presby- 
tery of  Pennsylvania  in  the  manner  and  for  the  objects  and  purposes  stated  in 
said  bill  of  complaint,  ancLthat  in  or  about  the  latter  part  of  the  year  1784, 
pursuant  to  said  petition  the  Kev.  Thomas  Beveredge  was  sent  to  the  said  pe- 
titioners at  Cambridge,  and  that  in  the  early  part  of  the  year  1785,  a  Congre- 
gation Avas  duly  organized  as  a  local  Church  in  said  town  of  Cambridge  un- 
der and  subordinate  to  the  said  Associate  Presbytery  according  to  the  princi- 
ples of  said  Presbytery,  and  subject  to  the  discipline  and  government  thereof 
which  said  Congregation  was  called  and  known  by  the  name  and  style  of  the 
Associate  Congregation  of  Cambridge,  adhering  to  the  Associate  Presbytery 
of  Pennsylvania. 

And  these  Defendants  further  severally  answering  said  original  Bill,  say 
that  the  term  "  Congregation"  means  a  local  Church  as  used  in  said  Associate 
Church,  but  it  is  not  true,  that  only  comprises  the  persons  who  are  members 
thereof  in  full  communion,  and  their  children  within  a  particular  territory, 
convenient  for  the  assembling  and  attending  upon  divine  worship,  but  are  the 
contrary  thereof ;  the  term  congregation  as  used  in  said  Church  comprises 
not  only  the  members  of  said  Church  in  full  communion,  but  also  all  other 
persons  statedly  attending  divine  worship  within  the  bounds  of  said  Congre- 
gation, and  in  the  church  belonging  thereto  comprehending  all  legal  voters  for 
Trustees  within  the  bounds  of  said  Congregation  according  to  the  principles 
of  said  Church,  and  to  the  provisions  of  the  Eevised  Statutes,  that  the  term 
congregation  means  the  members  in  full  communion  for  the  purpose  of  dis- 


38 

ponsing  and  rocoiving  spiritual  b  cncfits  ami  privileges  of  said  Church,  but  for 
no  (jiher  purposes  whatever. 

And  tliese  Difeiidants  further  in  answeriufr  said  original  Bill,  admit  that  in 
or  about  the  year  1S{):2  the  said  -^issooiate  l^resb^'tery  of  I'cnnsylvunia  was  di- 
vided into  the  several  Presbyter, ies  mentioned  in  said  bill  of  complaint,  and 
the  several  Presbyteries  mentioi'icd  in  said  bill  of  comjjJaint  have  also  since 
been  added  thereto  at  diflerent  ti  mes,  making  in^all  fifteen  Presbyteries  at  the 
present  time  and  about  the  same  time  a  Synod  was  duly  organized  by  the  said 
AssDciate  Church  as  the  visible  head  and  supreme  Judicatory  of  said  Church 
in  North  America  ; — and  these  E'efcndants  deny  that  it  was  stated  in  said  ori- 
ginal Bill,  tliat  "  although  the  Associate  Presbj-tery  of  Pennsylvania,  and  al- 
"  so  afterwards  the  Associate  Syi  lod  of  North  America  had  acknowledged  ec- 
■"  clesiastical  subordination  to  the  Associate  Synod  in  Scotland  ;  yet  in  or  about 
"  the  year  1817  this  subordinalic'U  was  abolished  by  deed  of  the  General  As- 
"  sociate  Synod  of  Scotland,  which  deed  was  acquiesced  in  by  the  Associate 
"  Synod  of  North  Amerca,"  but  the  whole  of  said  matter  is  new  matter  in- 
terpolated in  said  copy  of  bill  of  complaint  not  introduced  by  way  of  amend- 
ment, but  untruly  stated  to  have  l^een  contained  in  said  original  Bill,  and  these 
Defendants  neither  admit  nor  demy  said  matter,  nor  do  they  in  any  manner 
answer  the  same.  These  Defendants  admit  that  all  Presbyteries  and  Congre- 
gations are  subject  and  subordiBate  to  the  said  Associate  Synod  of  North 
America  according  to  the  principles,  discipline  and  government  of  the  said 
Associate  Church,  but  said  Synod  only  can  extend  its  jurisdiction  over  mem- 
bers in  full  communion  in  said  Church,  and  only  over  them  as  they  act  and 
make  their  decisions  according  to  scripture  and  the  well  established  decisions 
of  the  Church,  as  conscientiously  believed  by  the  member  or  members  judged 
or  censured  ;  and  these  Defendants  further  answering  said  original  Bill,  admit 
that  at  the  meeting  of  the  said  Synod  of  North  America  in  May,  1S38,  the 
Rev.  Thomas  Goodwillie  and  William  Pringle  were  regularly  erected  by  said 
Synod  into  the  Presbytery  of  Vermont,  in  the  manner  stated  in  said  bill  of 
complaint. 

And  these  Defendants,  further  answering  said  original  Bill,  admit  that  the 
said'Associate  Congregation  of  Cambridge  has  belonged  to  and  formed  a  part  of 
said  Associate  Presbytery  of  Cambridge,  ever  since  its  organization,  and  still 
does  belong  thereto,  and  form  a  part  thereof. 

And  these  Defendants,  further  answering  said  original  Bill,  admit  that  the 
Judicatories  established  by  said  Ckurch,  for  the  purposes  mentioned  in  said 
Bill  of  complaint  are  Sessions,  Presl)yteries  and  a  Synod,  that  said  Judicator- 
ies were  established  at  an  early  period  in  the  history  of  the  Church  in  Scot- 
land, and  were  adopted  by  said  Associate  Church  in  America  upon  its  organ- 
ization in  Pennsylvania — a  Session  is  constituted  as  stated  in  said  bill  of  com- 
plaint, and  has  the  general  superintendence,  control  and  government  of  the 
members  of  the  Congregation  in  fidl  communion  with  the  Church,  admits 
members  to  the  communion  with  power  to  call  before  them  and  proceed 
against  offending  members,  and  to  punish  by  the  censures  of  the  Church,  as 
the  case  may  require,  subject  to  appeal  to  Presbytery,  in  no  case  however  has 
a  Session  power  to  deal  Avith  its  minister,  but  the  Session  has  no  power  or 
control  over  any  of  the  members  of  the  Congregation,  not  in  full  communion, 
nor  has  it  any  control  or  any  thing  to  do  whatever  Avith  the  temporalities  be- 
longing to  the  Church  or  Congregation,  according  to  the  principles  of  the  said 
Associate  Church. 

And  these  Defendants,  further  in  answering  said  original  Bill,  admit  that 
a  Presbytery  is  constituted  in  the  mannex  stated  in  said  Bill  of  complaint,  and 


39  1 

\ 

has  the  power  and  jurisdiction,  and  exercises  thi  3  duties  mentioned,  and  set 
forth  in  said  Bill  of  complaint,  except  that  no  Pros  hytery  has  power  to  ordain 
or  settle  a  minister,  until  he  has  been  regularly  culled  by  the  particular 
Church  or  Congregation  over  which  he  is  to  preside  and  officiate,  according  to 
the  principles  of  said  Church,  and  no  Presbytery  has  any  right  or  power  to 
proceed  to  sentence  or  punish  any  member  when  tri'ed,  if  he  protests  against 
and  appeals  from  their  decisions  or  any  of  them — an  appeal,  as  these  Defend- 
ants are  advised  and  believe,  Avhen  made  by  a  party,  sl-ays  the  execution  of  the 
sentence  appealed  from — it  stays  the  judgment  and  th  e  execution  of  the  judg- 
ment— that  its  operation  is  to  suspend  all  further  proceedings,  and  in  the  mean 
time,  the  party  tried  may  exercise  all  liis  rights,  and  a  u  appeal  cannot  be  re- 
fused without  injustice  ;  it  is  the  right  of  every  indivi  dual,  when  brought  to 
trial,  but  these  Defendants  insist  and  aver  that  it  is  not  necessary  to  appeal 
from  the  decisions  of  a  Presbytery,  when  its  proceedings  are  entirely  null 
and  void,  and  when  not  within  the  rules  of  discipline  and  government  of  said 
Church,  nor  are  their  decisions  at  all  binding  upon  the  ii.rdividual  tried  under 
such  circumstances,  and  these  Defendants  further  insist  an  d  aver  that  no  deci- 
sion of  Presbytery  is  binding  upon  any  individual  unless  made  in  accordance 
with  the  word  of  God,  and  the  received  and  known  principles  of  the  Church,, 
and  whenever  such  decisions  are  contrary  to  these,  it  becomes  a  duty  to  re- 
sist them,  and  the  member  or  members  judged  have  the  right  to  the  free  ex- 
ercise ef  their  consciences  on  the  subject,  and  a  right  under  a  protest  to  exer- 
cise all  their  privileges  and  duties,  Avhether  ministerial  or  otherwise,  according 
to  the  rules  of  faith,  discipline  and  practice  in  said  Associate  Church. 

And  these  Defendants  further  insist  and  aver  that  a  declinature,  when  sent 
to  a  Presbytery  or  other  body  for  proper  cause,  stays  all  farther  proceedings  before 
said  Presbytery  or  other  tribunal,  and  carries  the  proceedings  to  a  higher  ju- 
dicatory. And  these  Defendants  further  insist  and  aver  that  although  mem- 
bers judged  or  tried  are  bound  to  subject  themselves  to  the  judicatories  of  the 
Church,  yet  it  is  not  an  absolute  subjection  that  they  engage  themselves  unto 
— it  is  not  a  blind  and  implicit  obedience  that  they  bind  themselves  unto — but 
a  subjection  in  the  Lord,  a  subjection  qualified  and  limited  by  the  word  of 
God,  and  the  received  and  known  principles  of  the  Church — that  there  is  a 
right  of  protest,  if  the  decision  is  conscientiously  and  sincerely  believed  to  be 
erroneous — and  if  a  minister  of  the  Gospel,  has  the  same  right  to  discharge 
ail  the  functions  of  a  Gospel  minister,  as  though  no  such  decision  had  ever 
been  made,  according  to  the  rules  of  faith,  discipline  and  practice  in  said  As- 
sociate Church,  nor  has  any  Presbytery  any  control  whatever  over  the  tempo- 
ralities of  a  Church,  nor  over  any  person  not  in  full  communion.  And  these 
Defendants  further,  in  answering  said  original  Bill,  admit  that  any  party  feel- 
ing himself  or  herself  aggrieved  by  any  sentence  or  decision  of  a  Presbytery- 
may  appeal  to  the  Synod.  And  these  Defendants  further  admit  that  a  Synod 
is  the  Supreme  Judicatory  of  the  Church,  and  is  composed  and  constituted  irt 
the  manner  stated  in  said  bill  of  complaint,  and  that  said  Synod  possess  and 
have  a  right  to  exercise  the  several  powers  stated  in  said  bill  of  complaint  and 
their  decisions  are  final,  so  far  a;s  they  are  in  accordance  with  the  rules  of  dis- 
cipline and  government  of  the  Church,  and  in  accordance  with  the  word  of 
God,  and  no  farther ;  that  any  person  feeling  himself  aggrieved,  may  protest 
against  the  decision  of  a  Synod,  and  claim  to  have  such  decision  reviewed, 
and  may  continue  his  protest  to  the  first  free  and  enlighted  Sjiiod,  and  if  said 
decision  is  conicientiously  believed  to  be  erroneous  and  unjust,  it  is  not  bind- 
ing upon  the  conscience  of  the  individual,  and  he  may  protest  and  under  said 
protest  may  exericise  all  his  functions,  ministerial  or  otherwise,  until  said  sen- 


40 

tcncc  is  reviewed  and  reversed  accordinc^  to  the  principles  of  said  Associate 
Clnirch.  And  these  Defendants  further  insist  and  aver  that  a  Synod  has  no 
power  or  jurisdiction  wliatever  over  the  temporalities  of  the  Church,  nor  has 
it  any  contro^or  power  o\er  any  member  or  person  not  in  full  communion  with 
said  Church. 

And  these  Defendants,  further,  in  answcriup^  said  origninal  Bill,  admit  that 
the  Associate  Synod  of  North  America  is  the  Supreme  Judicatory  of  the  said 
Associate  Church  in  N(n'th  America,  and  that  its  decisi(jns  are  obligatory  upon 
all  the  judicatories,  officers,  members,  and  congregations,  and  are  final  as  far 
as  they  are  made  in  conformity  to  the  rules  of  discipline,  and  to  the  principles 
of  said  Church,  and  i'a  accordance  with  the  word  of  God,  but  no  farther ;  nor 
are  they  oliligatory  "when  not  so  made  and  when  conscientiously  believed 
not  to  have  been  so  made,  as  before  stated  and  insisted  upon  by  these  Defen- 
dants. 

And  these  Defendants,  in  further  answering  said  original  Bill,  admit  that 
there  are  two  sentences  of  excommunication  used  in  the  Judicatories  of  the 
said  Associate  Church,  one  of  which  is  called  the  lesser  and  the  other  the 
higher  sentence — that  the  effect  of  the  said  several  sentences  of  excommuni- 
cation upon  an  individual  sentenced,  is  as  stated  in  said  bill  of  complaint — but 
these  Defendants  insist  and  aver  that  if  a  minister  is  in  the  sincere  and  con- 
scientious opinion  and  belief  of  such  minister  or  any  of  his  Congregation, 
wrongfully  excommunicated,  both  the  minister  and  his  congregation  are  bound 
to  resist  the  unjust  sentence,  and  to  hold  it  entirely  null  and  void,  according  to 
the  principles  of  said  Associate  Church. 

And  these  Defendants,  in  further  answering  said  original  Bill,  admit  that 
in  or  about  the  year  1784,  the  said  Associate  Church  of  North  America  through 
the  said  Associate  Presbytery  of  Pennsylvania,  adopted  and  published  a  par- 
ticular statement  of  their  principles  in  a  book  commonly  called  and  known  as 
the  declaration  and  testimony  of  the  Associate  Church  of  North  America — 
that  those  principles  are  as  set  out  and  stated  in  said  bill  of  complaint,  but 
these  Defendants  insist  and  aver  tha^  the  submission,  as  mentioned  in  the  or- 
dination vows,  is  a  submission  in  the  Lord ;  a  submission  to  a  Presbytery 
■when  it  acts  uprightly,  but  when  it  does  not  act  uprightly,  it  is  the  duty  of 
the  individual  to  refuse  to  submit  and  to  contend  against  and  resist  such  a 
judgment,  and  these  Defendants  beg  leave  to  refer  particularly  to  said  book 
of  declaration  and  testimony,  and  to  make  the  same  a  part  of  this  their  an- 
swer to  said  bill  of  complaint,  and  on  which  for  greater  certainty  they  rely. 

And  these  Defendants  further  in  answering  said  original  Bill,  admit  that  the 
principles  thus  adopted  and  published  by  the  said  Assosiate  Church  have  ever 
been  and  still  are  the  principles  of  the  faith  and  practice,  discipline  and  gov- 
ernment of  the  said  Associate  Church,  and  are  obligatory  upon  every  officer 
and  member  thereof,  subject  to  the  exceptions  and  explanations  heretofore  and 
hereafter  given  by  these  Defendants. 

And  these  Defendants  in  further  answering  said  original  Bill,  admit  that 
the  said  Associate  Congregation  of  Cambridge  have  always  since  their  first 
organization  in  the  year  1785,  been  in  all  respects  duly  organized  as  a  Con- 
gregation or  Church,  and  they  were  incorporated  in  the  year  1826,  though 
they  had  once  been  incorporated  previous  to  that  time,  and  these  Defendants 
are  informed  and  believe,  as  early  as  the  year  1801  or  1802  but  said  incor- 
poration had  for  several  years  become  invalid.  And  these  Defendants  admit  that 
as  well  before  as  since  the  incorporation  thereof  the  temporalities  of  said  Con- 
gregation (but  not  of  all  other  Congregations)  of  said  Associate  Church  were 
committed  to  the  custody  and  care  of  the  Trustees  elected  by  the  members  of 


41 

the  said  Congregation  in  full  communion  from  among  themselves ;  but  these 
Defendants  deny  that  such  was  the  case,  because  the  principles  of  said  Church 
or  the  law  required  it  so  to  be.  On  the  contrary  these  Defendants  aver  and 
state  the  fact  to  be  that  since  the  incorporation  of  the  said  Associate  Gliurch 
in  Cambridge  all  elections  for  Trustees  to  take  the  care  and  custody  of  the 
temporalities  of  said  Church,  have  been  held  in  the  manner  directed  by  the 
act  of  incorporation  under  the  Statutes  of  this  State — -that  notice  has  been 
given  from  year  to  year  to  all  qualified  voters  under  the  Statute,  to  attend  at 
the  time  and  place  specified  in  said  notice  for  the  holding  said  annual  election, 
and  the  vote  of  no  qualified  or  legal  voter  has  been  rejected  whether  he  was 
a  member  of  said  Church  in  full  communion  or  not.  And  these  Defendants 
further  in  answering  said  original  Bill,  admit  that  subsequent  to  the  organiza- 
tion of  said  Associate  Congregation  in  Cambridge,  and  prior  to  the  year  183S, 
the  said  Congregation  acquired  by  purchase,  exchange,  donations  and  subscrip- 
tions the  real  property  and  estate  mentioned  and  described  in  the  said  bill  of 
complaint,  but  these  Defendants  would  beg  leave  to  refer  to  the  several  deeds 
of  conveyance  of  said  real  estate,  when  produced  for  greater  certainty,  and 
these  Defendants  further  say,  that  all  of  said  real  estate  was  conveyed  to  the 
said  Congregation  for  a  valuable  and  pecuniary  consideration,  as  mentioned  in 
the  several  deeds  of  conveyance,  nor  has  any  part  or  portion  of  said  real  es- 
tate been  granted  or  given  to  the  said  Congregation  upon  conditions  that  the 
same  should  be  used  or  kept  in  any  other  manner  than  as  the  Trustees  from 
time  to  time  might  deem  proper — that  all  of  said  real  estate  has  been  pur- 
chased absolutely  from  time  to  time  (except  the  piece  conveyed  by  William 
Stevenson  and  his  wife,  which  was  exchanged  for  a  piece  of  land  of  about  the 
same  size  and  value,  belonging  to  the  said  Associate  Congregation)  Avithout 
any  conditions  or  restrictions  as  may  appear  by  the  several  deeds  of  convey- 
ance to  the  said  Congregation,  and  w"ithout  any  covenant  or  covenants,  con- 
fining said  Trustees  to  any  condition,  or  claiming  a  reversion  of  said  real  es- 
tate or  any  part  thereof  to  the  grantors  on  failure  to  comply  with  any  particu- 
lar covenants  or  conditions. 

And  these  Defendants  in  further  answering  said  original  Bill,  admit  that  in 
or  about  the  year  1833,  the  said  Associate  Congregation  of  Cambridge,  eretc- 
ed  and  built  upon  the  real  estate  so  conveyed  to  them  as  aforesaid  a  brick 
church  edifice  or  meeting  house  of  the  value  of  about  nine  thousand  dollars — 
that  said  church  was  built  by  subscription  principally  by  most  of  the  members 
comprising  said  Associate  Congregation,  and  partly  by  donations  and  subscrip- 
tions from  other  sources,  but  the  subscriptions  and  donations  were  paid  into 
the  hands  of  the  Trustees  of  said  Associate  Congregation  without  any  condi- 
tion or  restriction  imposed  upon  them  other  than  the  confidence  of  the  donors — 
that  the  amount  was  to  be  applied  for  religious  purposes,  and  for  the  building 
a  church  for  the  benefit  of  said  Congregation  in  the  manner  deemed  most  fit 
and  proper  by  the  said  Trustees,  and  without  any  express  or  implied  condition 
that  said  Trustees  or  Congregation  should  renain  subject  to  the  said  Associate 
Presbytery  of  Cambridge  farther  than  they  deemed  to  be  just,  expedient  and 
proper — that  by  far  the  largest  portion  being  at  least  $6000,  and  these  Defen- 
dants believe  more  was  contributed  by  the  elders,  Trustees,  and  that  part  of 
the  Congregation  who  now  adhere  to  the  Defendant,  Alexander  Bullions,  and 
who  wish  to  attend  his  ministrations,  that  this  number  consists  of  about  three 
hundred  and  forty,  comprising  five,  being  all  of  the  elders  of  the  said  Church, 
the  six  Trustees,  and  two  hundred  and  twent3^-one  communicants,  that  the  mi- 
nority of  said  Church  consists  of  the  Complainants  only  and  a  portion  of  their 
families,  except  one  or  two,  comprising  not  more  than  sixty  communicants,  and 
not  exceeding  seventy-five  in  all ;  and  these  Defendants  some  of  them  expressed 
6 


42 

a  wil]in£Tnoss  to  the  said  Complainants  before  the  commencement  of  this  sni>y 
and  oiferred  to  pay  thorn  their  shave  or  part  of  said  Churoli,  or  the  part  and 
share  which  they  subscribed  towards  the  erection  of  said  Church,  or  to  pay 
them  in  proportion  to  their  numbers,  but  tM'o  of  the  members  of  said  Congre- 
gation, to  wit  :  George  Lourie  and  James  Shiland  received  for  answer  from 
some  of  said  minority,  that  they  would  have  the  whole  or  nothing.  And  these 
Defendants  for  themselves  and  those  Avith  whom  they  are  impleaded,  now 
hereby  offer  again  to  pay  said  minority  the  amount  of  their  subscription,  or  in 
proportion  to  their  number  or  in  any  other  way  that  shall  be  deemed  just  and 
equitable  by  this  Honorable  Court, — but  these  Defendants  insist  that  said  Com- 
plainants in  such  an  event  should  be  required  to  pay  these  Defendants  costs  in 
this  behalf  most  wrongfully  and  unnecessarily  sustained. 

And  these  Defendants  further  in  answering  said  original  Bill,  deny  that  the 
said  Associate  Congregation  of  Cambridge,  previous  to  the  first  day  of  June, 
1838,  or  at  any  other  time,  erected  and  built  upon  the  said  premises  the  ne- 
cessary sheds  and  out  houses  for  the  accommodation  of  the  members  of  the 
said  Associate  Congregation,  and  other  persons  attending  divine  worship  at 
said  Church  edifice  that  the  words  "  and  individual  members"  w^ere  not  in 
the  original  bill,  and  have  been  interpolated  in  the  copy  of  the  supplemental 
and  original  Bill  served  on  these  Defendants'  solscitor;  but  on  the  contrary, 
these  Defendants  aver  and  state  the  fact  to  be,  that  all  the  sheds  mentioned  in 
the  said  bill  of  complaint,  were  erected  by  private  individuals  and  are  now 
the  property  of  said  individuals. 

And  these  Defendants  admit  that  previous  to  the  first  day  of  June,  1838  the 
said  Associate  Congregation  erected  and  built  upon  the  premises  aforesaid  a 
suitable  dwelling  house  with  the  necessary  out  buildings  connected  therewith, 
for  the  use  and  occupation  of  the  pastor  or  minister  of  the  said  Associate  Con- 
gregation of  Cambridge. 

And  these  Defendants  in  further  answering  said  original  Bill,  admit  that 
the  value  of  the  real  estate  so  conveyed  to  the  Congregation  as  aforesaid  with 
the  church  edifice  and  other  buildings  erected  thereon  is  now  of  about  the  val- 
ue of  thirteen  thousand  dollars.  And  these  Defendants  in  further  answering 
said  bill,  say  that  the  library  mentioned  in  said  bill  of  complaint  was  purchas- 
ed and  procured  by  private  subscription  of  members  of  the  said  Congregation 
and  not  from  the  funds  thereof  as  stated  in  said  bill,  and  these  Defendants 
arc  informed  and  believe  and  admit  that  the  furniture  for  the  church,  and  the 
pulpit,  and  fire  wood  for  the  use  of  the  meeting  house  have  been  procured  by 
the  said  Congregation,  and  that  the  value  of  the  same  including  the  said  li- 
brary is  about  the  sum  of  four  hundred  dollars  as  near  as  these  Defendants 
can  estimate  the  same. 

And  these  Defendants,  in  further  answering  said  original  Bill,  say  that  all 
the  property,  real  and  personal,  except  as  before  stated  and  inisted,  has  been 
and  still  is  held  by  the  Trustees  of  said  Congregation  in  trust  for  the  sole  and 
only  and  exclusive  purpose  of  being  devoted  solely  and  exclusively  to  the  sup- 
port and  maintenance  of  the  preaching  and  teaching  the  Gospel  and  the  ad- 
ministration of  divine  ordinances  in  said  Associate  Congregation,  according 
to  the  principles  of  faith,  practice,  discipline  and  government  of  said  Asso- 
ciate Church  of  North  America,  according  to  Avhich  principles  no  minister 
who  is  under  rightful  sentence  of  excommunication,  can  be  permitted  to  oc- 
cupy the  pulpit  or  administer  divine  ordinances  in  said  Associate  Congrega- 
tion— hut  these  Defendants  insist  and  aver  that,  if  any  minister  is  not  right- 
eously deposed  and  excommunicated,  or  if  his  Congregation  or  a  majority  of 
them  believe  the  same,  he  or  they  have  the  right  to  protest  and  decline  sub- 
mitting to  said  sentence — to  hold  the  same  null  and  void  until  it  is  reversed. 


43 

and  to  continue  to  preach  as  a  minister — that  it  is  the  right  and  the  duty  of 
both  minister  and  people  so  to  do  ;  that  it  is  a  right  they  derive  from  the 
veo^  foundation  and  constitution  of  their  Church,  and  the  Congregation  pos- 
sess the  equal  right  to  attend  upon  the  ministrations  of  such  a  minister  with- 
out being  sinful  in  the  sight  of  God,  as  these  Defendants  sincerely  and  con- 
scientiously believe,  and  these  Defendants  further  claim  and  insist  that  a  ma- 
jority of  the  Congregation  has,  at  all  times,  the  right  to  choose  and  select 
their  own  minister,  and  to  enjoy  his  preaching  as  long  as  he  does  not  depart 
materially  from  the  standards  of  faith  and  practice  of  the  said  Associate 
Church,  in  the  opinion  and  conscientious  belief  of  preacher  and  hearer,  and 
the  hearers  can  hear  and  attend  upon  the  ministrations  of  a  minister  wrong- 
fully excommunicated  in  their  opinion  and  belief  without  a  violation  of  the 
solemn  vows,  or  any  of  them  which  they  took  upon  them,  when  they  became 
members  of  said  Associate  Church,  and  it  is  their  privileges  and  duty  so  to 
do  ;  that  the  fathers  and  founders  of  the  Church  did  the  same,  and  founded 
the  Church  upon  those  principles,  preaching  themselves  under  sentence  of  de- 
position and  excommunication,  and  such  principles  have  been  ever  since  ad- 
hered to  by  said  Associate  Church. 

And  these  Defendants,  further  in  answering  said  original  Bill,  admit  that  on 
or  about  the  21st  day  of  November,  1826,  the  said  Associate  Congregation  of 
Cambridge  was  duly  incorporated  in  the  manner  and  under  the  name  and 
style  set  forth  in  said  Bill  of  complaint,  and  that  six  Trustees  of  said  Congre- 
gation were  duly  elected,  as  also  set  forth  in  said  Bill  of  complaint,  agreeably 
to  the  Laws  of  this  State,  and  the  said  act  of  incorporation — that  the  Trustees 
have  been  divided  into  three  classes,  and  one  third  thereof  elected  yearly  and 
every  year  since  the  incorporation  of  said  Associate  Congregation,  and  these 
Defendants  further  say  that  the  last  election  of  Trustees  was  regularly  held  in 
January  last,  and  that  the  names  of  the  Trustees  now  are  the  Defendants — 
James  Coulter,  James  Shiland,  Robert  McClellan,  Peter  Hill,  James  T.  Green 
and  James  Wood,  all  of  whom  adhere  to  the  Defendant  Alexander  Bullions, 
and  are  anxious  to  attend  upon  his  ministrations. 

And  these   Defendants,  in  further   answering  said  original  Bill,  admit  that 
the  Trustees  of  any  Congregation,    as  such  alone  have  no  power  to  call,  or  in 
any  manner,    to  obtain  or  procure  a  minister    to    preach   or    officiate  in  such 
Congregation,  that  a  Clergyman  or   Pastor   is  called  in  the  manner  and  form 
stated  in  said  Bill  of  complaint,  but  these  Defendants  insist  and  aver  that  no 
Presbytery  or  Synod  can  impose  or  send   any  minister  to  preach  in  any  Con- 
gregation without  the  consent  and  approbation  of  said  Congregation,  nor  have 
the  Presbytery  the  right  to  refuse  to  sanction  a  call  duly  made  by  the  Congre- 
gation without  the   strongest  and   most  justifiable  reasons — a  Congregation 
being  considered  in  all  things  to  have  the  right  and  power  to  choose  their  own 
minister,  and  the  sanction  by  Presbytery  being  considered  matter  of  form,  and 
of  course  when  the  Congregation  have    expressed    their  wishes  to  the  calling 
of  any  particular  minister  ;  and  these  Defendants  further  say  that  it  is  not  true 
that  the   Session    or  Congregation    have  no  power  to  supply  the  pulpit  of  any 
Congregation,  permanently,  temporarily  or  otherwise,  but  on  the  contrary  the 
Session  or  Congregation  may  not  only  invite  a  minister  in  good  standing  and 
full  communion  with  said   Associate  Church  to  preach    in   said  Cono-reo-ation 
for  one  or  two  Sabbaths,  as  the  exigencies  of  said  Congregation  may  require, 
but  said  Session   or  Congregation   may   invite   such  minister  to  preach  from 
Sabbath  to  Sabbath  as  long  as  they  shall  judge  it  to  be  expedient  and  proper, 
and  nobody  but  the  Congregation  and  Session  can  permit  any  minister  to  occu- 
py the  pulpit  of  said  Congregation,  according  to  the  principles  of  said  Asso- 
ciate Church. 


44 

And  those  Dofcndnnls,  in  fnrlhcr  answcrinc;  said  oriq;inal  Bill,  admit  that 
tlie  Defendant  Alexander  Hullious  Avas,  in  or  about  the  year  18()S,  called  by 
the  said  Associate  Conrjrei^alion  of  Cambridi,fe,  in  the  manner  state<l  in  said 
liill,  that  said  call  was  in  writintr,  and  is  iiv  the  j)OSBession  of  Dr.  bullions,  a#d 
is  as  stated  in  said  Bill  of  complaint  substantially. 

And  these  Defendants,  in  further  ans\verin<r  said  orij^inal  Bill,  admit  that 
said  call  was  delivered  to,  and  received  and  accepted  by  the  said  Alexander 
Bullions,  in  the  manner  set  forth  in  said  Bill  of  con>|)laint,  Jind  such  proceed- 
ing's were  thereupon  had  that  the  said  Alexander  Bullions  was  ordained  and 
installed  as  the  jiastor  of  said  Associate  Coni're'j^ation  of  Camlivid^ce,  and  on 
such  ordination  or  installation  one  of  his  vows  was  in  answerini^  aflirmatively 
the  question  contained  in  the  copy  of  said  Bill,  as  last  served  on  the  Solicitor 
of  these  Defendants,  and  not  the  question  contained  in  said  orijcinal  Bill,  as 
is  most  untruly  pretended  in  said  last  cop}%  that  the  foUowint^  words  were 
omitted  in  said  original  Bill,  and  are  now  interpolated  in  said  last  copy,  con- 
taining the  supplemental  and  amended  hill,  without  being  introduced  by  way 
of  amendment,  to  wit :  "  Remembering  that,  wliile  they  act  uprightly,  they 
judge  not  for  men  hut  for  the  Lord  wiio  is  also  with  them  in  the  judgment;" 
that  the  matter,  thus  omitted  in  said  original  Bill,  forms  a  very  nniterial  part 
of  said  article  in  the  opinion  and  belief  of  most  ministers  of  said  Associate 
Church,  as  the  Defendants  verily  believe,  and  in  the  opinitm  and  belief  of 
these  Defendants,  ;ind  fully  conhrmto  them  the  privilege  of  protesting  against 
and  refusing  to  submit  to  any  judgment  of  ]'resbytery  or  Synod,  which  is  not 
upright  and  in  accordance  Avith  the  word  of  God,  and  which  they  do  not  con- 
scientiously believe  to  be  upright  and  righteous. 

And  these  Defendants,  in  further  answering  said  original  Bill,  admit  that 
the  said  Alexander  Bullions  contirmed  to  be  the  pastor  of  said  Associate  Con- 
gregation of  Cambridge  under  the  authority  and  government  of  the  Associate 
Presbytery  of  Cambridge,  until  April,  1S3S,  but  these  Defendants  deny  that 
the  said  Alexander  Bullions  was  guilty  of  a  series  of  delinquencies  and  mis- 
conduct on  his  part,  at  any  time,  although  these  Defendants  cannot  be  more  ex- 
plicit in  their  denial  of  said  charges,  contained  in  said  original  Bill  for  want  of 
particular  specification  of  the  nature  and  character  of  said  delinquencies  and 
misconduct ;  yet  these  Defendants  aver  that  the  whole  alleged  olfence,  for 
which  the  said  Alexander  Bullions  was  suspended,  is  contained  in  the  follow- 
ing extract  from  the  minutes  of  the  Associate  Presbytery  of  Cambridge, — 
"  Extracts  from  the  minutes  of  Presbytery  of  Cambridge,  at  Arcfyle,  Oct.  5, 
1837." 

"  Dr.  Bullions  having  in  his  remarks  insinuated  that  some  member  or  mem- 
bers present  were  luifit  to  sit  in  any  Court,  it  was  on  motion  Resolved,  that  he 
be  required  to  give  the  names.  Dr.  Bullions  refused  to  give  the  names  by 
denying  his  former  words,  and  in  his  remarks  said.  Presbytery  might  censure 
till  they  were  tired.  It  was  on  motion,  Resolved  that  Dr.  B.  be  censured  for 
contempt  of  Court  in  the  above  slanderous  insinuation  and  expression.  On 
motion,  resolved  tliat  the  censure  due  Dr.  B.  be  a  rebuke.  Dr.  B.  entered  his 
prostest  against  the  minutes  recording  his  expression  and  appealed  to  Synod — 
protest  not  admitted.  He  then  protested  against  not  admitting  his  protest — 
this  protest  was  admitted.  Proceeded  to  inflict  the  censure  voted  to  Dr.  B. 
He  refused  to  submit,  protested  and  appealed  to  Synod — protest  not  admitted. 
He  then  protested  against  the  rejection  of  this  protest,  and  appealed  to  Synod, 
which  Avas  admitted.  It  was  then  on  motion  resolved  that  he  be  suspended 
from  the  exercise  of  his  ministry  and  the  communion  of  the  Church  till  he 
give  evidence  of  his  repentance  for  contumacy.     Dr.  B.  protested  against  this 


45 

decision  and  appealed — protest  not  admitted.     He  then  protested  against  the 
rejection  of  this  })rotcst  and  appealed — this  protest  was  admitted." 
"  A  true  extract,  attested  by 

D.  GORDON,  Clerk  Presbytery. 
And  these  Defendants  further  say  that  the  proceedings  of  said  Presbytery 
in  said  suspension  were  wholly  illegal,  not  according  to  the  rules  of  the  Church 
nor  the  word  of  God ;  unrighteous,  precipitate  and  void  ;  that  two  of  the  com- 
plainants, John  Robertson  and  William  Stevenson,  as  these  Defendants  are 
informed  and  believe,  at  the  time  they  were  had,  declared  them  so,  that  the 
said  John  Robertson  publicly  said  that  Presbytery  went  on  faster  than  he  him- 
self could  think;  that  their  proceedings  were  precipitate,  illegal  and  unjust, 
and  the  said  William  Stevenson  declared  in  substance  the  same  thing.  And 
these  Defendants  further  say  that  said  proceedings  of  said  Presbytery  having 
been  wholly  illegal  and  void  in  the  belief  of  these  Defendants,  these  Defen- 
dants were  not  bound  thereby,  and  the  said  Alexander  Bullions  under  his  pro- 
test and  aj)peal  as  well  as  on  the  ground  that  said  proceedings  were  void  in 
his  opinion  and  belief  had  the  full  right  to  continue  his  ministry  over  said  As- 
sociate Congregation  of  Cambridge.  And  these  Defendant^  further  say  that 
said  suspension,  on  the  5th  of  October,  1837,  Avas  followed  up  by  the  sentence 
of  deposition  and  excommunication  on  the  12th  day  of  April,  1838,  as  con- 
tained in  said  bill  of  complaint,  but  said  sentence  Avas  altogether  illegal,  un- 
righteous and  void — that  the  said  Presbytery  was  not  legally  constituted — that 
four  members  had  been  improperly  and  illegally  excluded  from  seats  in  its 
deliberations — that  members  set  in  Presbytery  against  the  said  Alexander 
Bullions,  who  were  his  accusers,  and  witnesses  against  him — that  the  said 
Alexander  Bullions  on  the  7th  day  of  February  had  sent  in  a  declinature  ta 
the  authority  of  said  Presbytery,  as  he  avers,  and  as  the  other  Defendants  are 
informed  and  believe,  which  he  had  a  perfect  right  to  do  and  which  removed 
all  proceedings  from  before  them — that  the  said  Alexander  Bullions  was  not 
present  at  the  meeting  of  Presbytery  on  the  12th  April,  1S3S,  or  at  the  meet- 
ing at  all,  and  Avas  deposed  from  the  ministry  during  his  absence,  against  the 
established  principles  and  law  of  the  Associate  Church,  which  is  that  no  Pres- 
bytery, unless  it  be  a  supreme  court,  possess  the  power  to  depose  a  minister  of 
the  Gospel  in  his  absence,  as  these  Defendants  are  informed,  advised  and  be- 
lieve— that  the  said  Alexander  Bullions  was  not  properly  and  legally  notified 
and  cited  to  appear  before  said  Presbyter}- — that  a  minority  of  said  Presbyte- 
ry assumed  to  act,  and  that  the  whole  proceedings  of  said  Presbytery  were- 
unrighteous,  illegal  and  void  in  the  opinion  and  belief  of  these  Defendants. 
And  the  Defendant,  Alexander  Bullions  duly  appealed  from  the  proceedings 
and  sentence  of  said  Presbytery  to  the  Associate  Synod  of  North  America 
And  these  Defendants  insist  and  aver  further,  that  if  no  appeal  had  been  regu- 
larly taken  to  the  doings  of  said  Presbytery,  in  said  sentences  of  suspension, 
deposition  and  excommunication,  none  was  necessary,  as  the  whole  proceed- 
ings were  null  and  void  in  the  opinion  and  belief  of  these  Defendants.  And 
these  Defendants,  in  the  conscientious  belief  that  they  were  so,  had  the  full 
right  to  continue  the  said  Alexander  Bullions  as  their  minister,  and  he  had 
the  full  right  to  continue  to  officiate  as  the  minister  of  said  Congregation, 
agreeably  to  the  principles  of  faith  and  practice  of  the  said  Associate  Church: 
and  of  the  said  Associate  Congregation  of  Cambridge.  And  these  Defend- 
ants, in  further  answering  said  original  Bill,  admit  that  the  said  Alexander 
Bullions  has  not,  at  any  time,  since  the  said  deposition  and  excommunication^ 
made  submission  to  the  said  Presbytery  for  the  reason  that  he  holds  said  pro- 
ceedings null  and  void,  as  do  these  Defendants,  and  these  Defendants  admit 


46 

that  the  saiil  AlcxaJidcr  Bullions  appoalocl  therefrom  to  the  said  Associate 
Synod  of  North  America,  who  had  lull  powcrand  jurisdiction  to  hear  said  ap- 
peal, and  who  aflinned  llic  decisions  of  said  Presbytery,  after  hearing  the  par- 
ties, but  not  on  full  proof,  but  at  a  small  meeting  of  Synod  only  46  memliers 
being  present;  that  a  protest  was.  entered  upon  the  minutes  of  Synod,  signed 
by  several  of  the  ministerial  members,  and  a  protest  was  also  entered  upon 
the  minutes  by  Dr.  Bullions,  claiming  that  the  whole  proceedings  were  null 
aiad  void  till  reviewed  and  reversed,  and  that  the  said  Alexander  Bullions  claim- 
ed all  his  rights  as  a  minister  of  the  Gospel,  and  should  discharge  all  the  func- 
tions of  the  Gospel  minister,  although  no  such  act  had  been  passed,  which 
said  protest  these  Defendants  are  ready  to  produce  and  prove  whenever  this 
Honorable  Court  shall  direct,  and  under  which  they  insist  and  aver  that  the 
said  Alexander  Bullions  has  the  right  to  exercise  his  ministerial  functions,  and 
thus  preserve  the  rules  of  discipline  of  the  Associate  Church  unimpaired. 

And  these  Defendants  further  admit  that  the  said  Alexander  Bullions  was 
remitted  to  the  said  Associate  Presbytery  of  Cambridge,  and  that  he  has  de- 
clined to  appear  before  said  Presbytery  for  the  reasons  herein  before  stated — 
that  he  holds  the  whole  proceedings  null  and  void,  and  conscientiously  believes 
them  so  to  be,  as  he  avers,  and  as  the  other  Defendants,  herein  named,  ve- 
rily believe,  and  the  said  Alexander  Bullions  does  persist  in  preacing  and  in 
e^cercising  the  ofRce  of  the  ministry  over  said  Associate  Congregation  of  Cam- 
bridge, for  the  reasons  before  stated,  and  not  in  defiance  and  contempt  of  the 
said  Associate  Presbytery  of  Cambridge  and  said  Associate  Synod  of  North 
America,  that  he  continues  to  preach  as  he  conscientiously  believes  he  has 
the  right  to  do  under  the  rules  of  discipline,  faith  and  practice  of  said  Asso- 
ciate Church,  and  in  compliance  with  the  wishes  and  desires  of  four  fifths  of 
the  said  Associate  Congregation  of  Cambridge,  and  these  Defendants  claim, 
say  and  insist,  as  members  of  the  said  Associate  Congregation  of  Cambridge, 
four  fifths  of  whom  agree  Avith  these  Defendants,  as  they  are  informed  by 
them  and  believe — that  the  said  Defendants,  including  the  said  Alexander  Bul- 
lions, have  the  right,  under  the  constitution  and  origin  of  said  church,  to  pro- 
test against  said  decision,  to  refuse  to  submit  to  them,  and  to  hold  them  null 
and  void,  if  they  conscientiously  believe  them  to  be  unjust  and  unrighteous, 
as  these  Defendants  conscientiously  and  sincerely  do, — that  these  Defendants 
and  the  other  members  of  said  Congregation,  who  adhere  to  Dr.  Bullions,  have 
not  departed  in  faith,  practice  or  discipline  from  the  principles  of  the  said  As- 
sociate Church,  nor  does  Dr.  Bullions  preach  a  different  Gospel  or  different 
■doctrines  from  those  which  he  has  preached  and  practiced  for  the  last  thirty 
years  and  ever  since  his  settlement  over  said  Congregation,  that  he  is  deposed 
for  no  error  in  doctrine,  faith  or  practice,  but  for  refusing  to  submit  to  a  rebuke 
for  an  insinuation  and  for  contumacy  in  insisting  on  his  constitutional  rights  of 
an  appeal  from  said  sentence  of  rebuke  to  a  superior  Judicatory. 

And  these  Defendants,  in  further  answering  said  original  Bill,  admit  that 
the  office  of  pastor  of  said  Associate  Congregation  of  Cambridge  was  formal- 
ly declared  vacant  by  the  Associate  Presbytery  of  Cambridge,  and  that  deed 
■confirmed  by  the  said  Associate  Synod  of  North  America,  in  the  manner  stated 
in  said  Bill  of  complaint,  but  these  Defendants  insist  and  aver  that  the  said 
Presbytery  or  Synod  had  no  power  or  right  under  the  circumstances  to  declare 
:said  Congregation  vacant  without  their  consent,  and  these  Defendants  claim 
t;hat  said  proceedings  are  wholly  null  and  void. 

And  these  Defendants  further  admit,  that  the  Synod  appointed  the  said 
Alexander  T.  McGill  and  the  Rev.  Joseph  McKie,  as  Commissioners  to 
febcr  in  said  Associate  Congregation  of  Cambridge,  in  the  manner  and  for  the 


47 

purposes  staled  in  said  oriG:inal  bill  of  complaint,  and  that  the  said  Commis- 
sioners appeared  and  attended  at  Cambridge  at  the  time  and  place  mentioned 
in  said  bill  of  complaint,   and  these  Defendants  further  admit  that  they  were 
notified  that   the  said  Alexander  Bullions  had   been  suspended,  deposed  and 
excommunicated,  and  the  Congregation   declared  vacant,  and  that  said  Com- 
missioners had  been  sent  by  the  said  Synod  for  the  purposes  mentioned  in  said 
bill,  and  these  Defendants  admit  that  they  shut  the  doors  of  said  church  against 
the  said  Commissioners  and  refused  to  permit  them  to  enter  the  said  church; 
but  these  Defendants  aver  that  it  is  positively  and  unequivocally  untrue  that 
they  shut  the   doors  of  said  church  at  the  instigation  and  request  of  the  said 
Alexander  Bullions,  but  on  the  contrary  thereof  these  Defendants  insist,  state 
and  aver,   that  they  refused  to  permit  the  said  Commissioners  to  enter  said 
church  to  occupy  the  pulpit  and  to  preach  or  administer  divine  ordinances  there- 
in under  the  express  vote   and  direction  of  the  said  Associate  Congregation  of 
Cambridge,  four  fifths  of  whom  so  voted  and  directed  the  Trustees.     And  these 
Defendants   further   aver  and  insist   that  the  said  Associate  Synod  of  North 
America  had  no  right  or  power  to  send  Commissioners  to  preach  in  the  said 
Associate  Congregation  of  Cambridge  without  their  consent,  and  these  Defen- 
dants verily  believe  the  said  Trustees  would  have  been  guilty  of  a  breach  of 
trust  if  they  had  permitted  the  said  Commissioners  to  enter  said  pulpit  con- 
trary to  the  wishes,  and  against  the  express  directions  of  said  Associate  Con- 
gregation of  Cambridge,  and  these  Defendants  admit  that  the  said  Trustees 
have  permitted  the  said  Alexander  Bullions  to  occupy  the  pulpit  and  officiate 
as  pastor  and  minister  in  said  church  edifice  or  meeting  house  of  said  Asso- 
ciate Congregation  of  Cambridge,  and  sustain,  uphold  and  support  him  there- 
in in  common  with  the  elders,   trustees  and  four-fifths  of  the  said  Congrega- 
tion under  their  solemn  vote,  and  that  the  Trustees  in  so  doing  have  only  act- 
ed in  obedience  to  the  wishes  and  direction  of  the   said  Congregation,  that 
these  Defendants  are  informed  and  believe  that  the  said  Trustees  are  only  in 
possession  of  two  of  the  books  belonging  to  said  Congregation,  and  no  papers 
except  two  of  the  deeds  mentioned  in  said  bill  of  complaint  belonging  to  the 
said  Congregation — the  other  books  and  papers  including  the  Common  Seal 
of  said  corporation  being  in  the  possession  of  William  Stevenson,  one  of  the 
Complainants  who  claims  to  hold  the  same,  and  utterly  refuses  to  deliver  them 
up  to  the  regularly  and  legally  elected  Trustees  of  said  Congregation,  as  these 
Defendants  are  informed  and  believe,  and  these  Defendants  pray  that  he  may 
be  compelled  to  restore  said  corporate  property  to  the  Trustees  of  said  Con- 
gregation by  a  decree  of  this  Honorable  Court,  and  these  Defendants  further 
admit  that  the  said  Trustees  have  rented  the  pews  of  said  meeting  house  in  the 
usual  ordinary  way  for  a  period  of  five  years,  that  said  pews  were  rented  five 
years  previous  to  the  first  day  of  January,  1839,  for  a  period  of  five  years  pur- 
suant to  the  terms  of  sale — that  at  the  expiration  of  the  said  term  of  five  years 
the  said  Trustees  by  the  vote  and  direction  of  said  congregation,  and  in  the 
usual  manner  caused  public  notice  to  be  given,  that  the  said  pews  would  be 
sold  for  another  period  of  five  years  at  the  church  edifice  on  the  first  day  of 
January,   1839 — that  on  the  day  appointed  the  said  pews  were  sold  at  public 
auction   in  the  usual  manner  to  the  highest  bidder — all  persons  having  the 
right  to  be  present  and  bid  who  were  so   disposed,  and  these   defendants  fur- 
ther aver  that  the  said  Trustees  did  not  sell  said  pews  to  the  exclusion  of  the 
said  Complainants,  or  any  other  person  whomsoever — that  said  Complainants 
or  any  member  of  said  Congregation,  or  any  other  person  might  have  been  pre- 
sent, and  bid  and  purchased  pews  if  they  had  felt  disposed — the  sale  being  an 
open,  public  and  fair  one — that  these  Defendants  are  informed  and  believe  that 


48 

said  Complainants  knew  of  said  sale — that  one  if  not  more  of  thorn  was  present 
at  said  sale — that  tJiey  liad  a  meeting  on  tlie  day  of  sale  near  said  churcli  ed- 
ifice, but  did  not  generally  attend  said  sale  nor  purchase  any  pews. 

And  these  Defendants  further  aver  that  the  said  Trustees  do  indeed,  in  ol)e- 
dience  to  their  trust,  claim  to  lioJd  and  control,  and  take  care  of  and  preserve 
said  real  and  personal  property  belonging  to  said  Associate  Congregation  of 
Cambridge  ;  but  these  Defendants  aver  and  insist  that  the  said  Trustees  do  not 
claim  any  other  control  over  said  property  than  they  are  anthorized  and  re- 
quired to  exercise,  by  said  Associate  Congregation,  and  by  the  laws  of  this 
State — that  they  do  not  pervert  the  funds  of  said  Congregation  from  their  ap- 
propriate uses  and  purposes,  but  on  the  contrary,  they  apply  said  funds,  or  did 
apply  them  until  tlie  injunction  in  this  cause,  according  to  the  directions  of 
said  Congregation,  and  in  support  of  a  minister  who  ministers  according  to  the 
principles  of  faith  and  practice  of  the  said  Associate  Church;  and  there  are 
no  funds  except  the  property  in  possession  of  Dr.  Bullions,  nor  have  they  the 
said  Trustees  appropriated  any  funds  of  the  said  Congregation  to  his  support 
since  the  injunction  in  this  cause. 

And  these  Defendants  deny  that  either  they  or  the  said  Trustees  have  ever 
excluded  except  in  the  case  of  the  two  commissioners,  as  before  stated,  or  that 
they  persist  in  excluding  clergymen  of  regular  standing,  in  full  communion 
with  said  Associate  Church  and  Congregation  from  preaching  and  administer- 
ing divine  ordinances  in  said  church  edifice,  but  on  the  contrary  thereof,  sev- 
eral ministers  in  full  communion  with  said  Church,  have  preached  in  said 
church  edifice  during  the  two  past  years,  and  since  said  supposed  deposition 
of  said  Alexander  Bullions,  and  these  Defendants  have  admitted,  and  are  wil- 
ling to  admit  in  said  pulpit  of  said  church  edifice,  ministers  in  regular  stand- 
ing in  said  Church,  except  the  two  commissioners  as  before  stated.  And  these 
Defendants  deny  that  they  have  excluded,  or  do  exclude  the  said  complainants, 
or  any  other  members  of  said  Congregation  from  said  church  edifice,  unless 
they  will  consent  to  hear  a  deposed  and  excommunicated  minister,  or  that 
they  have  excluded  or  do  exclude  said  Complainants,  or  any  other  member  of 
said  Congregation  from  said  church  edifice  in  any  way  or  manner  whatever. 

And  these  Defendants  in  further  answering  said  original  Bill,  admit  that 
the  Defendants,  James  Coulter,  James  Shiland,  Robert  McClelland  and  Peter 
Hill,  together  with  William  Stevenson  and  William  Robertson,  two  of  the 
complainants  were,  until  the  first  day  of  April,  1839,  the  Trustees  of  said  As- 
sociate Congregation  of  Cambridge,  but  that  James  Green  was  duly  elected 
to  fill  the  place  of  William  Robertson,  whose  seat  became  vacant  by  expira- 
tion of  his  term  of  office  on  the  first  day  of  April,  1839,  and  was  duly  quali- 
fied and  took  his  seat  at  the  time  as  such  Trustee,  and  that  James  Woods  was 
duly  elected  at  the  last  annual  election,  to  fill  the  place  of  William  Steven- 
son, whose  seat  became  vacant  by  the  expiration  of  his  term,  on  the  first  day 
of  April,  1840,  who  took  his  seat  on  that  day  as  such  Trustee — that  the  six 
Trustees  of  said  Associate  Congregation  of  Cambridge  are  the  four  Defen- 
dants first  above  named  and  the  said  James  Green  and  James  Woods,  all  of 
whom  adhere  to  the  said  Alexander  Bullions,  and  wish  to  attend  his  ministry. 
And  these  Defendants,  the  said  Associate  Congregation,  deny  that  they  have 
ever  been  applied  to  in  a  friendly  manner  to  exclude  the  said  Alexander  Bul- 
lions from  the  said  church  edifice,  in  the  manner  stated  in  said  original  Bill  of 
complaint,  or  to  permit  other  ministers  to  preach  therein,  or  to  permit  the  com- 
plainants and  their  associates  to  occupy  said  church  edifice  in  the  manner  sta- 
ted in  said  original  Bill  of  complaint ;  but  these  Defendants  admit  that  they 
have  been  requested  by  said  complainants,  on  behalf  of  themselves  and  their 


49 

Associates  to  comply  with  the  requisitions  above  and  in  said  Bill  of  complaint 
specified,  in  any  other  than  a  friendly  manner,  and  that  they  have  declined  to 
comply  with  the  requirements  for  the  reasons  herein  before  and  hereinafter 
stated — and  these  Defendants  aver,  maintain  and  insist  that  the  said  Trustees 
have  the  full  right  in  the  execution  of  their  trust,  to  employ  and  permit  the 
said  Alexander  Bullions  to  preach  in  said  church  edifice,  and  to  administer  di- 
vine ordinances  therein  while  a  large  majority  of  said  Congregation  being 
four  fifths  thereof,  request  and  require  the  said  Trustees  so  to  do,  as  said  Con- 
gregation have  the  sole  right  to  employ  such  minister  as  they  choose,  when  he 
does  not  materially  vary  from  the  standards  of  faith  and  practice  in  said 
Church,  as  Dr.  Bullions  does  not,  and  these  Defendants  do  not  pretend  nor 
claim  to  have  the  right,  or  that  the  said  Trustees  have  the  right  to  appropriate 
the  property  and  effects  of  said  Congregation  to  any  other  use  than  it  was 
originally  intended,  and  these  Defendants  do  not  appropriate  them  to  any  other 
use  than  to  the  support  of  a  minister  adhering  to  the  principles  of  faith  and 
practice  of  the  said  Associate  Church,  in  the  free  exercise  of  his  privileges 
and  rights  of  conscience  as  before  fully  stated  and  set  forth. 

And  these  Defendants  further  insist  upon,  aver  and  maintain  that  the  said 
Alexander  Bullions  on  the  third  day  of  July,  1838,  was  after  being  subjected 
to  certain  discipline,  regularly  admitted  a  member  of  the  Presbytery  of  Ver- 
mont, of  which  he  now  is  a  regular  member,  and  as  such  a  member  of  the 
Associate  Synod  of  North  America — that  said  Associate  Presbytery  of  Ver- 
mont had  full  power  and  authority  to  admit  the  said  Alexander  Bullions  as  a 
member  thereof,  notwithstanding  he  resided  within  the  limits  of  the  Presby- 
tery of  Cambridge — that  the  fact  of  the  said  Thomas  Goodwillie  having  once 
been  a  brother-in-law  of  the  said  Alexander  Bullions,  and  of  the  said  Mr. 
Pringle  being  the  son-in-law  of  the  said  Alexander  Bullions  did  not  disquali- 
fy them  or  either  of  them  from  acting  as  members  of  said  Presbytery  accor- 
ding to  the  principles  of  said  Associate  Church — that  they  were  unjustly,  ille- 
gally and  improperly  prevented  from  acting  while  members  of  the  Associate 
Presbytery  of  Cambridge,  agreeably  to  the  rules  of  discipline  and  practice  of 
said  Associate  Church,  as  stated  in  said  original  bill  of  complaint. 

And  these  Defendants  further  in  answering  as  to  the  pretences  in  said  orig- 
inal Bill  and  the  charges  grounded  thereon,  say  that  they  do  not  pretend  that 
the  said  Alexander  Bullions  is  willing  to  submit  to  the  decisions  of  the  Asso- 
ciate Presbytery  of  Cambridge  and  the  Associate  Synod  of  North  America  in 
their  present  unrighteous  and  illegal  form,  but  the  said  Alexander  Bullions 
claims  and  insists,  and  these  Defendants  claim  and  insist  that  he  has  a  right 
to  hold  said  decisions  null  and  void,  and  to  continue  his  ministry  under  his 
protest  until  said  unrighteous  decisions  are  reviewed  and  reversed,  if  the  said 
Alexander  Bullions  in  his  conscience  believes  them  unrighteous,  and  ,if  these 
Defendants  believe  them  to  be  so,  according  to  the  principles  of  faith,  practice 
and  discipline  in  the  said  Associate  Church — that  the  said  Alexander  Bullions 
is  willing  to  submit  in  all  things  to  the  decisions  of  said  Presbytery  when  le- 
gally aud  righteously  made — but  these  Defendants  are  informed  and  believe 
and  therefore  charge  the  fact  to  be,  that  the  said  Alexander  Bullions  did  say 
to  the  best  of  his  recollection  and  belief,  that  he  would  not  belong  to  said 
Presbytery  one  hour  even  if  they  would  restore  him  im^mediately,  and  that 
the  said  Alexander  Bullions  has  said  he  had  no  desire  to  belong  to  said  Pres- 
bytery of  Cambridge,  so  long  as  their  decisions  continued  to  be  contrary  to 
the  principles  of  faith  and  practice  in  the  Church,  and  to  the  word  of  God. 

And  these  Defendants,  in  further  answering  the  charges  grounded  on  said 
pretences,  insist  upon,  claim  and  aver  and  maintain  that  the  said  Alexander 
7 


50 

Bullions  has  the  full  right  to  exercise  his  ministerial  functions^  as  he  is  now 
doing  under  Ills  protest,  notwithstanding  the  decisions  of  the  said  Presbytery 
and  JSynod,  provided  he  conscientiously  believes  saiil  decisions  to  be  unright- 
eous and  unjust,  and  contrary  to  he  rules  of  faith,  discipline  and  practice  of 
the  said  Associate  Church  ;  and  these  Defendants  do  conscientiously  Itelieve 
taid  decisions  to  be  unjust  and  unrighteous  and  that  they  liave  the  full  right 
in  accordance  with  tlie  principles  of  said  Associate  Church,  to  hear  him  preach 
and  to  appropriate  the  pro'perty  and  eliects  of  said  Associate  Congregation  of 
Cambridge,  nor  is  it  necessary,  in  order  to  entitle  the  said  Alexander  Bullions 
to  preach,  that  the  said  decisions  of  Presbytery  and  Synod  be  rescinded,  and 
lie  formally  restored  and  reinstated  in  the  manner  stated  in  the  charges  in  said 
bill  of  complaint,  according  to  the  rules  and  practice,  discipline  and  govern- 
ment of  said  Associate  Church, 

And  these  Defendants  further  insist,  aver  and  maintain  that  by  the  laws  of 
the  land,  each  christian  Congregation  has  the  right  to  select  and  choose  its 
own  minister  and  to  elect  its  own  Trustees  to  take  the  care  and  custody  of  the 
temporalities  of  the  Church;  and  that  a  large  majority,  being  at  least  four 
liftlis  of  the  said  Associate  Congregation  of  Cambridge,  have  directed  and  do 
direct  the  said  Trustees  to  continue  the  said  Alexander  Bullions  as  their  min- 
ister— and  these  Defendants  insist  upon  and  contend,  so  long  as  a  majority  ©f 
said  Associate  Congregation  are  in  favor  of  the  said  Alexander  Bullions,  and 
desire  to  attend  vipon  his  ministrations,  he  cannot  by  the  laws  of  the  land  be 
ousted  from  said  Church,  or  lawfully  enjoined  from  preaching  therein  in  con- 
sequence of  the  unrighteous  decisions  of  any  ecclesiastical  court  or  tribunal. 
And  these  Defendants  deny  all  tuilawful  combination  and  confederacy  in  the 
said  Bill  charged  without  that — that  any  other  matter  or  thing  in  the  said  orig- 
inal Bill  not  herein  and  hereby  Avell  and  sufficiently  answered  unto,  confessed^ 
avoided,  traversed  or  denied,  is  true  to  the  knowledge  and  belief  of  these  De- 
fendants. 

And  these  Defendants  cannot  affix  the  corporate  seal  of  the  Congregation 
to  this  their  answer,  for  the  reason  that  the  same  is  in  the  possession  and  con- 
trol of  William  Stevenson,  one  of  the  Complainants  in  this  cause — all  of  which 
matters  and  things  these  Defendants  are  ready  to  aver,  and  maintain  and  prove 
as  this  Honorable  Court  shall  direct. 

And  these  Defendants,  the  said  Associate  Congregation,  as  to  the  said  sup- 
plemental Bill,  and  the  amendments  incorporated  therewith,  filed  by  the  said 
Complainants — by  protestation,  and  not  confessing  all  or  any  of  the  matters 
and  things  in  the  said  supplemental  Bill  contained  to  be  true,  in  such  manner 
and  form  as  the  same  are  therein  set  forth  and  alleged,  do  demur  to  the  said 
supplemental  bill,  and  for  cause  of  demurrer^  shew  to  this  Honorable  Court 
that  the  said  Complainants  have  not  by  their  said  supplemental  bill,. made  such 
a  case  as  will  entitle  them  to  any  relief  in  a  court  of  equity  against  these  De- 
fendants— as  to  the  matters  contained  in  said  supplemental  bill  to  which  they 
the  said  Complainants  would  not  have  been  entitled  by  their  said- original  Bill 
herein  before  answered  unto  by  these  Defendants,  and  that  the  matters  con- 
tained in  said  supplemental  bill  do  not  add  to  or  strengthen  the  claim  of  said 
Complainants  set  up,  charged  and  put  forth  in  their  said  original  Bill,  or  form 
any  additional  ground  for  relief  in  hehalf  of  said  Complainants  against  these 
Defendants,  or  the  other  Defendants  named  in  said  original  bill  of  complaint. 
And  that  any  answer  made  by  these  Dei^ndants  touching  the  matters  contain- 
ed in  said  supplemental  bill,  or  any  of  them,  cannot  be  of  any  avail  to  the  said 
Complainants  for  any  of  the  purposes  sought,  nor  do  said  matters  contained  in 
said  supplemental  bill  entitle  the  said  Complainants  to  any  relief  in  this  court, 


51 

to  which  they  would  not  be  entitled  by  their  said  original  Bill,  if  they  are  en- 
titled to  any  relief  at  all.  Wherefore,  and  for  divers  other  good  cause  of  de- 
murrer appearing  in  the  said  bill,  these  Defendants  do  demur  thereto,  and  they 
pray  the  judgment  of  this  Honorable  Court  whether  they  shall  be  compelled 
to  make  anj^  other  or  further  answer  to  the  said  supplemental  bill — and  they 
humbly  pray  to  be  dismissed  from  hence,  with  their  reasonable  costs  and  charges 
in  this' behalf  most  wrongfully  sustained. 

B-  Blair,  Solicitor  JAMES  SHILAND,  Clerk  of  the 

For  Defendants.  Board  of  Trustees  of  the  Associate  Congre^ 

C.  L.  Allen,  of  Counsel,       gallon  of  Cambridge. 

GEORGE  LOURIE,  Clerk  of  the 
Sessions  of  Associate  Congregation  of  Cam- 
bridge. 

State  of  New  York,"  James  Shiland  and  George  Lourie,  of  the  town 
AVashinirtOll  County,  SS.  :  of  Jackson,  in  the  County  of  Washington,  being 
duly  sworn,  say  that  he  the  said  James  Shiland  now  is  and  for  some  years 
past  kas  been  the  Clerk  of  the  Trustees  of  the  corporation  known  as  the  As- 
sociate Congregation  of  Cambridge,  mentioned  in  the  foregoing  answer,  and 
that  the  said  George  now  is,  and  has  been  for  several  years,  Clerk  of  the  Ses- 
sions of  said  Congregation,  that  by  means  of  the  said  offices  of  Clerks,  they 
have  acquired  and  possess  as  they  verily  believe,  as  great  or  greater  and  more 
particular  knowledge  of  and  relating  to  the  matters  of  the  said  answer  and  the 
facts  therein  stated,  than  any  other  member  of  said  Congregation,  that  they 
have  heard  read  the  said  answer  subscribed  by  them,  and  that  the  same  is 
true  of  their  own  knowledge,  except  as  to  the  matters  therein  stated  to  be  on 
the  information  and  belief  of  the  Defendants,  and  as  to  those  matters  they 
have  been  so  informed,  and  believe  it  to  be  true. 

Sworn  this  21st  day  of  April,  )  GEORGE  LOURIE, 

1840,  before  me,  \  JAMES  SHILAND. 

KIRTLAND  WARNER,  Commissioner  of  Deeds. 


IN    CHANCERY: 

The  joint,  several  and  separate  answers  of  Alexander  Bullions,  James  Coul- 
ter, James  Shiland,  Robert  McClelland  and  Pet<er  Hill,  Trustees  of  the  As- 
sociate Congregation,  who  are  impleaded  with  the  Associate  Congregation  of 
Cambridge,  of  the  County  of  Washington,  adhering  to  the  principles  of  the 
Associate  Presbytery  of  Pennsylvania  formerlj-,  now  the  Associate  Synod  of 
North  America,  Defendants  to  the  bill  of  complaint  of  Willian  Stevenson, 
William  Robertson,  William  McGeoch,  Edward  Small,  John  McArthur,  James 
McArthur,  Robert  McArthur,  Peter  McArthur,  George  Small,  John  Arnot,  James 
Arnot,  Edward  Cook,  John  Robertson,  Thomas  McMorriss,  James  Hoy,  John 
McDonl,  Isaac  Ashton,   John  Foster,   and  William  Livingston,  Complainants. 

These  Defendants  now  and  at  all  times  forever  hereafter,  saving  and  reser- 
ving to  themselves  all  advantage  and  benefit  of  exception  to  the  many  errors 
and  imperfections  contained  in  the  said  bill  of  complaint  of  the  said  Complain- 
ants, for  answer  thereto,  or  to  as  much  thereof  as  they  are  advised  is  material 
for  them  to  make  answer,  they  answering  admit,  that  the  Complainants  men- 
tioned and  named  in  the  said  bill  of  complaint,  did,  on  or  about  the  20th  day 
of  March,  1839  file  their  original  Bill  in  this  Honorable  Court  against  the  De- 
fendants therein  named  as  stated  in  said  bill  of  complaint.     And  these  De- 


52 

fendnnts  further  answcrinij  admit,  that  iho  said  Defendants  having  being  ser- 
ved with  process  to  appear  in  said  suit,  appeared  by  tlieir  solicitor,  but  no  copy 
of  tlie  said  Complainants'   l)ill  liavincr   been  oA'er  served  on  said  Defendant's 
solicitor,  the  said    Defendants   have  put    in  no  answer  to   said  original  Bill  of 
complaint.     And  these  Defenilants  Au-ther  answering,  say  they  have  been  in- 
formed and  believe  and  admit,  that  on  the  Gth  day  of  Augnst,  1S39,  leave  was 
granted  by  this  Honorable  Court   to  said  Complainants  to  file  a  supplemental 
bill  in  said  cause,  with  leave  to  insert  therein  such  amendatory  matter  as  they 
might  be  advised  was  material,  without  prejudice  to  the  rights  of  the  said  De- 
fendants, or  cither  of  them  lo  (lemur  to  the   supplemental  bill  or  any  matters 
contained  therein,  if  the}'  si)Guld  he  advised  so  to  do,  in  the  manner  as  stated 
in  said   bill  of  complaint.     And   these   Defendants  in    further  answering  said 
original  Bill   say,  that   they  admit,  that  in  or  about  the  year  1754  the  sect  or 
denomination  of  christians?  known  in  common  parlance  as  theAssociate  Church 
of  North  America,  but  which  is  now  styled  and  called  in  the  minutes  and  rec- 
ords of  the  proceedings  of  said   church,  the  Associate  Synod  of  North  Ameri- 
ca, was  in  all  due  form  and  accordingto  the  principles  which  originally  found- 
ed said  Church,  organized   as  a  Church  in  the  then  province  of  Pennsylvania 
under  the  inspection,  superintendence  and  care  of  the  Associate  Synod  of  Scot- 
land— that  said  sect  had  its  origin  in   or  about  the  year  1733  as  these  Defend- 
ants are   informed   and  believe — that  it   was  founded  by   the   Eev.  Ebenezer 
Erskine  and  three  others  Avho  had  previously  belonged  to  and  formed  a  part  of 
the  Synod  of  Perth  and  Sterling  of  the  General  Assembly   of  Scotland — that 
in  consequence  of  the  preaching  of  a  sermon  by  the  said  Eev.  Mr.  Erskine  be- 
fore the  said  Synod  of  Perth  and  Sterling,  he  was  condemned  by  said  Synod  and 
declared  worthy  of  censure,  and   because  he   would  not  retract  by  submitting 
to  a  rebuke,  for  what  he  had  said,  and  to  an  admonition  warning  him  to  speak 
so  no  more,  and  because  he  with  his  three  brethren  protested  against  said  de- 
cision, and  appealed  to   the  first   enlightened   and   reformed  Synod,  they  were 
suspended  from  the  ministry  of  the  Gospel  by  said  Synod — that  they  continued 
to  preach  however  under  their  protest  until  in  December,  1736,  they  finally  foun- 
ded and  formed  the  said  Associate  Church  under  said  censure  and  suspension, 
claiming   the  right  of  conscience  to  judge  for   themselves  as  to  the  justice  or 
right  of  ecclesiastical  censures,   and  to  protest  against  them,  and  to  continue 
their  ministry,  they  Avere  finally  deposed  by  the  General  Assembly^ — that  this 
right  of  protest   against  the  decisions  of  their    ecclesiastical   courts   has  evpr 
been  claimed   by  their   followers  in    Scotland  as  well  as  in  America  as  and  is 
in  fact,   one    of  the   foundation   principles   of  said   Church,  one  of  the  corner 
stones  of  its  organization.     And  these  Defendants  insist  and  aver,  that  one  of 
the  main   principles  established   and  adopted  by  the  founders  of  said  Church, 
and  which  has  been  ever  since  received  and  believed  and  exercised,  and  still  is 
received  and  believed  and  exercised  as  such  among  its  members  is  that  church 
courts  may  be  and  frequently  are  fallible,  that  they  have  erred,  and  frequently 
do  err,  and  that  their  decisions  are  to  be  regarded  only  when  they  agree  with 
the  word  of  God,  and  the  received  and  known  principles  of  the  Church,  and 
that  left  to  the  conscience  and  sincere  belief  of  the  individual  passing  under 
their  judgment. 

And  these  Defendants  further  answering  said  original  Bill  admit,  that  the 
several  Congregations  of  said  Church,  at  or  about  the  time  of  said  organiza- 
tion in  1754,  by  the  authority  of  the  said  Synod,  constituted  and  organized  a 
Presbytery  which  Avas  styled  "  the  Associate  Presbytery  of  Pennsylvania,  and 
which  was  then  subordinate  to  the  said  Associate  Synod  of  Scotland.  And 
these  Defendants  further  in  answering  said  original  Bill  admit,  that  in  or  about 


53 

ihe  year  1784,  sundry  individimls  of  the  town  of  Cambridge  and  other  adja- 
cent towns  in  the  State  of  New  York,  professing  the  tenets,  principles  and 
faith  of  the  said  Associate  Church,  petitioned  tlie  said  Associate  Presbytery  of 
Pennsylvania,  in  the  nnanner  and  for  the  objects  and  purposes  stated  in  said 
bill  of  complaint,  and  that  in  or  about  the  latter  part  of  the  year  1784,  pursu- 
ant to  said  petition,  the  Rev.  Thomas  Beveridge  was  sent  to  the  said  petition- 
ers at  Cambridge,  and  that  in  the  early  part  of  the  year  1785,  a  congregation 
was  duly  organized  as  a  local  Church  in  the  said  town  of  Cambridge, 
under  and  subordinate  to  the  said  Associate  Presbytery,  according  to  the  prin- 
ciples of  said  Presbytery,  and  subject  to  the  discipline  and  government  there- 
of, which  said  Congregation  was  called  and  known  by  the  name  and  style  of 
the  Associate  Congregation  of  Cambridge,  adhering  to  the  Associate  Presby- 
tery of  Pennsylvania.  And  these  Defendants  further  and  severally  answering 
said  original  Bill  say,  that  the  term  "  Congregation"  means  a  local  Church, 
as  used  in  said  Associate  Church,  but  it  is  not  true  that  it  only  comprises  the 
persons  who  are  members  thereof,  in  full  communion,  and  their  children,  with- 
in a  particular  territory  convenient  for  the  assembling  and  attending  upon  di- 
vine worship,  but  on  the  contrary  thereof,  the  term  Congregation  as  used  in 
said  Church,  comprises  not  only  the  members  of  said  church  in  full  commu- 
nion, but  also  all  other  persons  statedly  attending  divine  worship  within  the 
bounds  of  said  Congregation,  and  in  the  church  belonging  thereto,  compre- 
hending all  legal  voters  for  Trustees  within  the  bounds  of  said  Congregation, 
iaccording  to  the  principles  of  said  Church  and  to  the  provisions  of  the  revised 
statutes,  that  the  term  Congregation  means  the  members  in  full  communion 
for  the  purpose  of  dispensing  and  receiving  the  spiritual  benefits  and  privileges 
of  said  Church,  but  for  no  other  pvu'pose  whatever. 

And  these  Defendants  further  in  answering  said  original  Bill  admit,  that  in 
or  about  the  year  1802,  the  said  Associate  Presbytery  of  Pennsylvania  was 
divided  into  the  several  Presbyteries  mentioned  and  described  in  said  bill  of 
complaint,  and  the  several  Presbyteries  mentioned  insaidbill  of  complaint,  have 
also  since  been  added  thereto  at  different  times,  making  in  all  fifteen  Presby- 
teries at  the  present  time,  and  about  the  same  time  a  Synod  was  duly  organ-* 
ized  by  the  said  Associate  Church  as  the  visible  head  and  Supreme  Judicatory 
of  said  Church  in  North  America.  And  these  Defendants  deny  that  it  was  sta-. 
ted  in  said  original  Bill  that  "  although  the  Associate  Presbytery  of  Pennsyl- 
vania, and  also  afterwards  the  Associate  Synod  of  North  America  had  ac-. 
knowledged  ecclesiastical  subordination  to  the  Associate  Synod  of  Scotland, 
yet  in  or  about  the  year  1817,  this  subordination  was  abolished  by  deed  of  the 
General  Associate  Synod  of  Scotland,  which  deed  was  acquiesced  in  by  the 
Associate  Synod  of  North  America."  But  the  whole  of  said  matter  is  new 
matter,  interpolated  in  said  copy  of  bill  of  complaint,  not  introduced  by  way  of 
amendment,  but  untruly  stated  to  have  been  contained  in  said  original  bill,  and 
these  Defendants  neither  admit  nor  deny  said  matter,  nor  do  they  in  any  manr 
ner  answer  the  same.  These  Defendants  admit,  that  all  Presbyteries  and  Con-r 
gregations  are  subordinate  and  subject  to  the  said  Associate  Synod  of  North 
America,  according  to  the  principles,  discipline  and  government  of  the  said 
Associate  Church,  but  said  Synod  only  can  extend  its  jurisdiction  over  mem- 
bers in  full  communion  in  said  Church,  and  only  over  them,  as  they  act  and 
make  their  decisions  according  to  scripture  and  the  well  established '^decisions 
of  the  Church,  as  conscientiously  believed  by  the  member  or  members  judged 
or  censured. 

And  these  Defendants  further  answering  said  original  bill  admit,  that  at  the 
meeting  of  the  said  Synod  of  North  America,  in  May  1838,  the  Rev.  Thom- 


54 

ns  Gnoilwiirie  and  tho  Rov..  "William  Prin<^lo  wore  rcfrularU'  erected  by  said 
^yiiocl  into  the  Presbytery  of  Vermont,  in  the  manner  stated  in  said  bill  of 
eomplaint.  And  these  Defendants  fnrther  answering;  said  orii^inal  Bill  admit, 
that  the  said  Associate  Coni,rregation  of  Cambridi^e,  hai  belons^ed  to  and  form- 
*h1  a  part  of  «aid  Associate  Presbytery  of  Cambridge  ever  since  its  organiza- 
tion, and  still  does  belong  thereto  and  form  a  part  thereof.  And  tliese  Defen- 
dants further  answerijig  said  original  Bill  admit,  that  the  judicatories  estab- 
lished by  said  Church  for  ihe  purposes  mentioned  in  said  bill  of  complaint,  are 
Sessionsi,  Presbvteries,  and  a  Synod  ;  that  said  judicatories  were  -estabilished 
at  an  early  period  of  the  history  of  the  Church  in  Scotland,  and  were  adopted 
bv  said  Associate  Church  in  America,  upon  its  organization  in  Pennsylvania. 
A  Session  is  constituted  as  stated  in  said  bill  of  complaint,  and  has  the  gen- 
eral superintendence,  control  and  government  of  the  members  of  the  Congre- 
gation, in  full  communion  with  the  Church,  admits  members  to  the  commu- 
nion, with  power  to  call  before  them  and  proceed  against  offending  members, 
and  to  punish  bv  the  censures  of  the  Church,  as  the  case  may  require,  sub- 
ject to  appeal  to  Presbytery — in  no  case  however  has  a  Session  power  to  deal 
with  its  minister.  But  a  Session  has  no  power  or  control  over  any  of  the 
members  of  the  Congregation  not  in  full  communion,  nor  has  it  any  control 
or  any  thing  to  do  whatever  with  the  temporalities  belonging  to  the  Church  or 
Congregation. 

And  these  Defendants  further  in  answering  to  the  first  amendment  to  said 
original  Bill,  subject  to  the  objection  of  these  Defendants  hereinafter  men- 
tioned, and  without  waiving  said  objection  or  their  rights  under  it,  they  answer 
.and  say  that  it  is  wholly  and  entirely  untrue,  that  a  Session  has  the  power 
and  authority  to  suspend  any  of  the  members  of  a  Church  or  Congregation 
from  the  communion,  or  any  other  privileges  as  members  of  such  Church  upon 
the  charges  mentioned  in  said  bill  of  complaint,  or  any  of  them,  until  a  trial 
.-and  regular  course  of  dealing  can  be  had  with  such  member,  according  to  the 
rules  and  discipline  and  government  of  said  Church,  nor  have  the  Session  any 
power  whatever  to  suspend  a  member  from  any  Church  privilege  until  a  fair 
trial  can  be  had,  according  to  the  rules  and  discipline  of  said  Church,  except 
an  the  single  case  that  a  Session  may  keep  a  member  from  sealing  ordinances 
.so  called,  Avhen  a  charge  is  brought  against  him,  so  near  to  the  time  of  the 
isacrement,  that  he  cannot  be  tried,  but  in  no  other  case  whatever,  has  a  Ses- 
•-sion  power  to  suspend  a  member  before  putting  him  on  trial,  and  before  a  reg- 
'ular  conviction  on  said  trial.  A  Session  also  has  the  full  power  to  excommu- 
"•nicate  any  member  except  its  minister,  but  not  till  after  full  trial,  according  to 
5the  rules,  discipline  and  Church  government. 

And  these  Defendants  further  answering  said  original  Bill  admit,  that  any 
^person  feeling  himself  aggrieved  by  the  decision  of  a  Session  may  appeal  to 
"the  Presbytery  to  which  said  Session  belongs,  but  it  is  not  necessary  to  appeal 
■xo  a  Presbytery,  when  the  sentence  of  a  Session  is  absolutely  null  and  void, 
•for  want  oif  jurisdiction  in  said  Session,  or  where  a  member  has  not  been  le- 
gally summoned,  or  any  other  cause,  according  to  the  rules  of  faith,  discipline 
land  practice  in  said  Church. 

And  these  Defendants,  further  in  answering  said  original  Bill,  admit  that  a 
Presbytery  is  constituted  in  the  manner  stated  in  said  Bill  of  complaint,  and 
lias  the  powers  and  jurisdiction,  and  exercises  the  duties  mentioned  and  set 
forth  in  said  Bill  of  complaint,  except  that  no  Presbytery  has  power  to  ordain 
or  settle  a  minister  until  he  has  been  regularly  called  by  the  particular  Church 
or  Congregation  over  which  he  is  to  preside  and  officiate,  according  to  the 
principles  of  said  Church,  and  no   Presbytery  has  any  right  or  power  to  pro- 


55 

ceed  to  sentence  or  punish  any  member,  Avhen  trieJ,  if  he  protests  agamsC 
and  appeals  from  their  decisions  or  any  of  them.  An  appeal,  as  these  De- 
fendants are  advised  and  believe,  Avhen  made  by  a  party,  sists  the  execution 
of  the  sentence  appealed  from  it,  styas  the  judgment  and  execution  of  the 
judgment  j  that  its  operation  is  to  suspend  all  further  ])rocecdings  in  the  mat' 
ter  appealed  from,  and  in  the  mean  time  the  party  tried  may  exercise  all  his 
right,  and  an  appeal  cannot  be  refused  without  injustice  ;  it  is  the  right  of 
every  individual,  when  brought  to  trial,  but  these  Defendants  insist  and  aver 
that  it  is  not  necessary  to  appeal  from  the  decision  of  a  Presbytery,  where  its 
proceeeings  are  entirely  null  and  void,  and  when  not  Avithin  the  rules  of  dis- 
cipline and  government  of  said  Church,  nor  are  their  decisions,  at  all  binding 
upon  the  individual  tried  under  such  circumstances,  and  these  Defendants  fur- 
ther insist  and  aver  that  no  decision  of  Presbytery  is  binding  upon  any  indi- 
vidual, imless  made  in  accordance  with  the  word  of  God,  and  the  received 
and  known  principles  of  the  Church,  and  whenever  such  decisions  are  con- 
trary to  these,  it  becomes  a  duty  to  resist  them,  and  the  member  or  members 
judged  have  the  right  to  the  free  exercise  of  their  conscience  on  the  subject, 
and  a  right  under  protest  to  exercise  all  their  privileges  and  duties,  whether 
ministerial  or  otherwise,  according  to  the  rules  of  faith,  discipline  and  practice 
in  said  Associate  Church,  and  these  Defendants  further  insist  and  aver  that  a 
declinature  when  sent  to  a  Presbytery  or  other  body  for  proper  cause  stays  all' 
further  proceedings  before  said  Presbytery  or  other  tribunal  and  carries  the 
proceedinds  to  a  higher  Judicatory.  And  these  Defendants  further  insist 
and  aver  that,  although  members  judged  or  tried,  are  bound  to  subject  them- 
selves to  the  Judicatories  of  the  Church,  '^yet  it  is  not  an  absolute  subjection 
that  they  engage  themselves  unto,  it  is  not  a  blind  and  implicit  obedience  that 
they  bind  themselves  unto,  but  a  subjection  in  the  Lord,  a  subjection  qualified 
and  limited  hy  the  word  of  God,  and  the  received  and  known  principles 
of  the  Church,  that  there  is  a  right,  of  protest,  if  the  decision  is  conscientious- 
\y  and  sincerely  believed  to  be  erroneous,  and  the  party  has  a  right  to  hold  the 
decisions  null  and  void,  when  conscientiously  believed  to  be  erroneous,  and  if 
a  minister  of  the  Gospel  has  the  same  right  to  discharge  all  the  functions  of  a 
Gospel  minister,  as  though  no  such  decision  had  ever  been  made,  according 
to  the  rules  of  faith,  discipline  and  practice  of  said  Associate  Church;  nor  has- 
any  Presbytery  any  control  whatever  over  the  temporalities  of  a  Church,  nor 
over  any  person  not  in  full  communion.  And  these  Defendants,,  further  in  an- 
swering the  second  amendment  to  said  original  Bill,  under  the  objection  be- 
fore mentioned,  as  hereinafter  stated,  and  without  waivmg  their  rights  under 
it,  they  answer  and  say  that  it  is  wholly  untrue  that  a  Presbytery,  according- 
to  the  rules  of  faith,  discipline  and  practice  of  said  Associate  Church,  has  any 
power  or  right  to  suspend,  excommunicate  or  otherwise  deal  with  any  Congre- 
gation within  its^bounds  or  under  its  control,  supervision  or  inspection  or  any 
portion  of  a  Congregation  en  masse  for  any  error  in  doctrine,  immorality  in 
practice,  insubordination  schismatic,  or  other  disorganizing  or  heretical  con- 
duct, or  other  disregard  of  a  non  compliance  in  the  deeds,  acts,  decrees  or  de- 
cisions of  a  Presbytery,  or  contempt  or  disobedience  of  its  lawful  authority, 
nor  has  a  Presbytery  any  power  or  authority  to  declare  or  decide  who  do  or 
who  do  not  compose  any  part  of,  and  who  are,  nnd  who  are  not  members  of 
any  Congregation,  nor  can  it  determine  and  declare  the  ecclesiastical  stand- 
ing of  any  Congregation  or  any  part  thereof  within  its  jurisdiction  or  under 
its  supervision,  nor  can  it  declare  and  decide  who  are  and  who  are  not  the  re- 
gular 'elders  of  any  such  Congregation,  nor  can  it  declare  and  determine 
whether  the  Session  of  any  such  Congregation  has  been  legally  and  canonic- 


56 

ally  constituted  ;  that  on  tlie  contrar}'  no  Presbytery  has  any  jurisdiction  ovef 
a  Church  or  (Jongrcgatiou  within  its  bounds,  except  by  appeal  from  the  deci- 
sion of  the  Session  of  said  Chnrch,  nor  has  any  Presbytery  any  original  juris- 
diction whatever  over  a  Church  or  Congregation  within  its  hounds,  except  the 
power  to  try  and  remove  its  minister,  all  other  proceedings  relative  to  any 
Church  or  Congregaticiu,  must  come  before  said  Presbytery  regularly  through 
the  Session  of  said  Church  b}-  appeal,  and  the  whole  of  said  charge  in  said 
second  amendment  to  said  Bill  of  complaint  other  than  as  herein  explained  is 
wholly  and  nn(|ualificdly  untrue.  And  these  Defendants  further  say  that^ 
though  the  members  of  any  Church  or  Congregation  are  bound  to  yield  obe- 
dience to  the  decisions  to  the  Presbytery  to  Avhicli  it  belongs,  yet  such  deci- 
sions are  no  farther  binding  than  as  made  in  conformity  to  the  rules  and  dis- 
cipline of  the  Church,  and  in  accordance  with  the  word  of  God,  nor  are  they 
bindmg  when,  in  the  sincere  and  conscientious  belief  of  the  person  or  per- 
sons judged,  the  Presbytery  making  them,  does  not  act  uprightly,  that  such' 
are  the  very  principles  upon  which  the  original  Church  was  founded,  and  they 
have  continued  to  be  the  principles  of  said  Church  to  the  present  day. 

And  these  Defendants  further  in  answering  said  original  Bill  admit,  that 
any  party  feeling  himself  or  herself  aggrieved  by  any  sentence  or  decision  of  a 
Presbytery  may  appeal  to  the  Synod  ;  and  these  Defendants  further  admit  that 
a  Synod  is  the  Supreme  Judicatory  of  the  Church,  and  is  composed  and  con- 
stituted in  the  manner  stated  in  said  bill  of  complaint,  and  that  said  Synod 
possess  and  have  a  right  to  exercise  the  several  powers  stated  in  said  bill  of  com- 
plaint, and  their  decisions  are  final  so  far  as  they  are  in  accordance  with  the 
rules  of  discipline  and  government  of  the  Church,  and  in  accordance  with  the 
Word  of  God  and  no  farther — that  any  person  feeling  himself  aggrieved  may 
protest  against  the  decision  of  a  Synod,  and  claim  to  have  said  decision  review- 
ed, and  may  continue  his  protest  to  the  first  free  and  enlightened  Synod,  and. 
if  said  decision  is  conscientiously  believed  to  be  erroneous  and  unjust,  it  is  not 
binding  upon  the  conscience  of  the  individual,  and  he  may  protest,  and  under 
said  protest  exercise  all  his  functions,  ministerial  or  otherwise,  until  such  sen- 
tence is  reviewed  and  reversed  according  to  the  principles  of  said  Associate 
Church. 

And  these  Defendants  further  insist  and  and  aver,  that  a  Synod  has  no' 
power  or  jurisdiction  whatever  over  the  temporalities  of  the  Church,  nor  has  it 
any  control  or  power  over  any  member  or  person  not  in  full  communion  with  said' 
Church.  And  these  Defendants  further  in  answering  the  third  amendment  to 
said  original  Bill,  subject  to  the  objection  hereafter  mentioned,  and  without 
waiving  their  rights  under  it,  they  answer  and  say,  that  it  is  wholly  untrue — • 
that  a  Synod  has  power  to  suspend  or  dissolve  any  Presbytery  and  to  place  the 
Presbytery  or  Congregation  belonging  to  it  under  the  care  of  any  other  Pres- 
bytery temporarily  or  permanently  as  they  may  deem  meet,  nor  have  the  Syn- 
od any  power  to  suspend  a  Presbytery  without  a  regular  citation  to  said  Pres- 
bj'tery  to  appear  before  them,  and  without  giving  said  Presbytery  on  opportu- 
nity to  be  heard  in  its  defence,  and  even  then  without  the  justist  cause,  and 
any  suspension  of  a  Presbytery  by  a  Synod  Avithout  such  citation  is  entirely 
null  and  void  and  of  no  effect  whatever,  according  to  the  rules  of  discipline, 
faith  and  practice  of  said  Associate  Church. 

And  these  Defendants  further  say,  that  it  is  wholly  untrue,  that  upon  depos- 
ing any  minister,  of  upon  afiirming  the  act  or  sentence  of  any  Presbytery  de- 
posing any  minister,  the  Synod  has  any  power  to  declare  the  office  of  pastor  or 
minister  in  the  said  Congregation  vacant,  nor  any  power  of  the  like  kind  or  ef- 
fect, nor  have  they  any  power  ever  to  declare  a  Congregation  vacant,  nor  has 


67 

a  Synod  any  power  whatever  to  send  Commissioners  to  labor  in  any  Church 
or  Congregation,  nor  can  they  compel  any  Congregation  to  permit  any  minis- 
ter to  preach  in  their  church  or  pulpit  except  by  their  own  free  will  and  con- 
sent, but  every  Congregation  has  the  right  to  choose  and  select  its  own  minis- 
ter according  to  the  principles  of  said  Associate  Church — that  said  Synod  has 
no  power  originally  to  depose  a  minister — that  such  power  belongs  to  the  Pres- 
bytery, and  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Synod  is  only  appellate.  And  these  Defen- 
dants further  answering  said  original  Bill  admit,  that  the  Associate  Synod  of 
North  America  is  the  Supreme  Judicatory  of  the  said  Associate  Church  in 
North  America,  and  that  its  decisions  are  obligatory  upon  all  the  judicatories,- 
officers,  members  and  Congregations,  and  are  fmal  so  far  as  they  are  made  in 
conformity  to  the  rules  of  discipline  and  to  the  principles  of  said  Church,  and 
in  accordance  with  the  word  of  God,  but  no  farther  ;  nor  are  they  obligatory 
when  not  so  made,  and  when  conscientiously  believed  not  to  have  been  so 
made,  as  before  stated  and  insisted  upon  by  these  Defendants.  And  these 
Defendants  in  further  answering  said  original  Bill  admit,  that  there  are  two 
sentences  of  excommunication  used  in  the  judicatories  of  said  Associate  Church, 
one  of  which  is  called  the  lesser  and  the  other  the  higher  sentence,  that  the 
effect  of  said  several  sentences  of  excommunication  upon  an  individual  sen- 
tenced is  as  stated  in  said  bill  of  complaint.  But  these  Defendants  insist  and 
aver,  that  if  a  minister  is,  in  the  sincere  and  conscientious  opinion  and  belief 
of  such  minister  or  any  of  his  Congregation,  wrongfully  excommunicated,  both 
the  minister  and  his  Congregation  are  bound  to  resist  the  unjust  sentence,,  and 
to  hold  it  entirely  null  and  void  according  to  the  principles  of  said  Associate 
Church. 

And  these  Defendants  in  further  answering  said  original  Bill  admit,  that  in 
or  about  the  year  1784,  the  said  Associate  Church  of  North  America,  through 
the  said  Associate  Presbytery  of  Pennsylvania,  adopted  and  published  a  par- 
ticular statement  of  their  principles  in  a  book  commonly  called  and  known  as 
the  declaration  and  testimony  of  the  Associate  Church  of  North  America — 
that  those  principles  are  as  partly  set  out  and  stated  in  said  bill  of  complaint, 
but  these  Defendants  insist  and  aver  that  the  submission  as  mentioned  in  the 
ordination  vows  is  a  submission  in  the  Lord,  a  submission  to  a  Presbytery 
when  it  acts  uprightly,  but  when  it  does  not  act  uprightly,  it  is  the  duty  of  the 
individual  to  refuse  to  submit,  and  to  contend  against  and  to  resist  such  judg- 
ment, and  these  Defendants  beg  leave  to  refer  particularly  to  said  book  of  dec- 
laration and  testimony,  and  to  make  the  same  a  part  of  this  their  answer  to 
said  bill  of  complaint,  and  on  which  for  greater  certainty  they  rely. 

And  these  Defendants  further  in  answering  said  original  Bill  admit,  that 
the  principles  thus  adopted  and  published  by  the  said  Associate  Church,  have 
ever  been  and  still  are  the  principles  of  the  faith  and  practice,  discipline  and 
government  of  the  said  Associate  Church,  and  are  obligatory  upon  every  offi- 
cer and  member  thereof,  subject  to  the  exceptions  and  explanations  heretofore 
and  hereafter  given  by  these  Defendants.  And  these  Defendants  in  further 
answering  said  original  Bill,  admit  that  the  said  Associate  Congregation  of 
Cambridge  have  always,  since  their  first  organization  in  1785,  been  in  all  re- 
spects duly  organized  as  a  Congregation  or  Church,  and  they  were  incorporat- 
ed in  the  year  1826,  though  they  had  once  been  incorporated  previous  to  that 
time,  and  as  these  Defendants  are  informed  and  believe  as  early  as  the  year 
1801  or  1802,  but  said  incorporation  had,  for  several  years,  become  invalid. — 
And  these  Defendants  admit  that,  as  well  before  as  since  the  iacorporation 
thereof,  the  temporalities  of  the  said  Congregation  (but  not  of  all  other  Con- 
gregations) of  said  Associate  Church  were  committed  to  the  custody  and  care 
8 


58 

of  the  Trustees  elected  by  the  members  of  the  said  Congregation  in  full  com" 
munion  from  among  themselves,  but  these  Defendants  deny  that  such  was  the 
case,  because  the  principles  of  tlie  said  Church  or  the  law  required  it  so  to  be, 
on  the  contrary  these  Defendants  aver  and  state  the  fact  to  be  that,  since  the 
incorporation  of  said  Associate  Church  in  Cambridge,  all  elections  for  Trus- 
tees to  take  the  care  and  custody  of  the  temporalities  of  said  Church  have 
been  held  in  the  manner  directed  by  the  act  of  incorporation  under  the  statutes 
of  this  State,  that  notices  have  been  given  from  year  to  year  to  all  qualified 
voters  under  the  statute  to  attend  at  the  time  and  place  specified  in  said  no- 
tice for  the  holding  said  annual  elections,  and  the  vote  of  no  qualified  or  legal 
voter  has  been  rejected,  whether  he  was  a  member  of  said  church  in  full  com- 
munion or  not.  And  these  Defendants,  further  in  answering  said  original 
Bill,  admit  that,  subsequent  to  the  organization  of  said  Associate  Congrega- 
tion of  Cambridge,  and  prior  to  the  year  1838,  the  said  Congregation  acquired 
by  purchase,  exchange,  donations  and  subscriptions  the  real  property  and  es- 
tate mentioned  and  described  in  the  said  Bill  of  complaint,  but  these  Defend- 
ants would  beg  leave  to  refer  to  the  several  deeds  of  conveyance  of  said  real 
estate,  when  produced  for  greater  certainty.  And  these  Defendants  further 
say  that  all  of  said  real  estate  W'as  conveyed  to  the  said  Congregation  for  a 
valuable  and  pecuniary  consideration  as  mentioned  in  the  several  deeds  of 
conveyance,  nor  has  any  part  or  portion  of  said  real  estate  been  granted 
or  given  to  the  said  Congregation  upon  conditions  that  the  same  should  be 
used  or  kept  in  any  other  manner  than  as  the  Trustees  might,  from  time  to 
time,  deem  proper — that  all  of  said  real  estate  has  been  purchased  absolutely 
from  time  to  time,  except  the  piece  conveyed  by  William  Stevenson  and  his 
wife,  which  was  exchanged  for  a  piece  of  land  of  about  the  same  size  and 
value  belonging  to  the  said  Associate  Congregation  without  any  conditions  or 
restrictions,  as  may  appear  by  the  several  deeds  of  conveyance  to  the  said 
Congregation,  and  without  any  covenant  or  covenants,  confining  said  Trus- 
tees to  any  conditions,  or  claiming  a  revision  of  said  real  estate  or  of  any 
part  thereof  to  the  grantors  on  failure  to  comply  with  any  particular  covenants 
or  conditions. 

And  these  Defendants  in  further  answering  said  original  Bill  admit,  that  in 
or  about  the  year  1833,  the  said  Associate  Congregation  of  Cambridge  erect- 
ed and  built  upon  the  said  real  estate  so  conveyed  to  them  as  aforesaid,  a  brick 
church  edifice  or  meeting  house  of  the  value  of  about  nine  thousand  dollars — 
that  said  church  was  built  by  subscription  principally  by  most  of  the  members 
composing  said  Associate  Congregation,  and  partly  by  donations  and  subscrip- 
tions from  other  sources — that  these  Defendants  cannot  state  the  amount  de- 
rived from  other  sources — but  the  subscriptions  and  donations  Avere  paid  into, 
the  hands  of  the  Trustees  of  said  Associate  Congregation  Avithout  any  re- 
striction or  condition  imposed  upon  them  other  than  the  confidence  of  the  do- 
jiors — that  the  amount  was  to  be  applied  for  religious  purposes  and  for  the  buil- 
ding a  church  for  the  benefit  of  said  Cong-regation  in  the  manner  deemed 
most  fit  and  proper  by  the  said  Trustees,  and  without  any  express  or  implied 
condition  that  said  Trustees  or  Congregation  should  remain  subject  to  the  said 
Associate  Presbytery  of  Cambridge  farther  than  they  deemed  to  be  just,  expe- 
dient and  proper — that  by  far  the  largest  proportion  being  at  least  $6000,  and 
these  Defendants  believe  more  Avas  contributed  by  the  elders.  Trustees  and. 
that  portion  of  the  Congregation  Avho  noAv  adhere  to  the  Defendant,  Alexan- 
der Bullions,  and  Avho  Avish  to  attend  his  ministrations — that  this  number  con- 
sists of  about  three  hundred  and  forty  comprising  five  being  all  of  the  elders 
ef  said  Church,  the  sLx  Trustees  and  .  avo  hundred  and  twenty-one  communi- 


59 

cants — that  the  minority  of  said  Church  consists  of  the  Complainants  only 
and  a  portion  of  their  families  except  one  or  two  comprising  not  more  than 
sixty  communicants  and  not  exceeding  seventy-five  in  all. 

And  these  Defendants,  some  of  them  expressed  a  willingness  to  the  said 
Complainants,  before  the  commencement  of  this  suit,  and  offered  to  pay  them 
their  share  and  part  of  said  Church,  or  the  part  and  share  which  they  sub- 
scribed towards  the  erection  of  said  church,  or  to  pay  them  in  proportion  to 
their  number — but  two  of  the  members  of  said  Congregation,  to  wit :  George 
Lourie  and  James  Shiland  received  for  answer  from  some  of  said  minority, 
that  they  would  have  the  whole  or  nothing.  And  these  Defendants  for  them- 
selves and  the  rest  of  the  Congregation  now  hereby  offer  again  to  pay  said 
minority  the  amount  of  their  subscription  or  in  proportion  to  their  number  or 
in  any  other  way  that  shall  be  deemed  just  and  equitable  by  this  Honorable 
Court,  but  these  Defendants  insist,  that  said  Complainants  in  such  an  event 
should  be  required  to  pay  these  Defendants  costs  in  this  behalf  most  wrongful- 
ly and  unnecessarily  sustained. 

And  these  Defendants  further  in  answering  said  original  Bill,  deny  that  the 
said  Associate  Congregation  of  Cambridge,  previous  to  the  first  day  of  June,  1838, 
or  at  any  other  time,  erected  and  built  upon  the  said  premises  the  necessary 
sheds  and  out-houses  for  the  accommodation  of  the  members  of  the  said  Asso- 
ciate Congregation,  and  other  persons  attending  divine  worship  at  said  church 
edifice — that  the  words,  "  and  individual  members"  were  not  in  the  original 
Bill,  and  have  been  intei-polated  in  the  copy  of  supplemental  and  original  Bill, 
served  on  these  Defendants'  Solicitor,  but  on  the  contrary  the  Defendants 
aver  and  state  the  fact  to  be,  that  all  the  sheds  mentioned  in  said  bill  of  com- 
plaint were  erected  by  private  individuals,  and  are  now  the  property  of  said 
individuals.  And  these  Defendants  admit,  that  previous  to  the  first  day  of 
June,  1838,  the  said  Associate  Congregation  erected  and  built  upon  the  prem- 
ises aforesaid,  a  suitable  dwelling  house,  with  the  necessary  out  buildings  con- 
nected therewith,  for  the  use  and  occupation  of  the  pastor  or  minister  of  the 
said  Associate  Congregation  of  Cambridge.  And  these  Defendants  in  further 
answering  said  original  Bill  admit,  that  the  value  of  the  real  estate  so  con- 
veyed to  the  Congregation  as  aforesaid,  together  with  the  church  edifice  and 
other  buildings  erected  thereon,  is  now  of  about  the  value  of  thirteen  thou- 
sand dollars. 

And  these  Defendants  in  further  answering  said  original  Bill,  say  that  the 
library  mentioned  in  said  bill  of  complaint,  was  purchased  and  procured  by 
private  subscription  of  members  of  the  said  Congregation,  and  not  from  the 
funds  thereof  as  stated  in  said  bill ;  and  these  Defendants  are  informed  and 
believe  and  admit  that  the  furniture  for  the  church  and  the  pulpit,  and  fire- 
wood for  the  use  of  the  meeting  house  have  been  procured  by  the  said  Con- 
gregation, and  that  the  value  of  the  same,  including  the  said  library,  is  about 
the  sum  of  four  hundred  dollars,  as  near  as  these  Defendants  can  estimate  the 
same.  And  these  Defendants  in  further  answering  said  original  Bill,  say  that 
all  the  property,  real  and  personal,  except  as  before  stated  and  insisted,  has 
been  and  still  is  held  by  the  Trustees  of  said  Congregation  in  trust,  for  the 
sole  and  only  and  exclusive  purpose,  of  being  devoted  and  appropriated  solely 
and  exclusively  to  the  support  and  maintenance  of  the  preaching  and  teaching 
the  Gospel,  and  the  administration  of  divine  ordinances  in  said  Associate  Con- 
gregation, according  to  the  principles  of  faith,  practice,  discipline  and  govern- 
ment of  said  Associate  Church  of  North  America,  according  to  which  princi- 
ples no  minister  who  is  under  rightful  sentence  of  excommunication  can  be 
permitted  to  occupy  the  pulpit  or  administer  divine  ordinances  in  said  Associ" 


69 

ate  Conpfrcgation ;  but  these  Defendants  insist  and  aver  that  if  any  minister 
is  not  righteously  deposed  and  exromniiMiicated,  and  does  not  conscientiously 
believe  that  he  is  rii,fhtfnlly  deposed  and  excommunicated,  or  if  his  Congre- 
gation or  a  majority  of  tlu-m,  believe  the  same,  he  or  they  have  the  right  to 
protest  and  decline  submitting  to  said  sentence,  to  hold  the  same  mill  and 
void,  until  it  is  reversed,  and  to  continue  to  preach  as  a  minister — that  it  is 
the  right  and  the  duty  of  both  minister  and  people  so  to  do — that  it  is  a  right 
they  derive  from  the  very  foundation  and  constitution  of  their  Church — and 
the  Congregation  possess  the  equal  right  to  attend  upon  the  ministrations  of 
such  a  minister,  without  being  sinful  in  the  sight  of  God,  as  these  Defendants 
sincerely  and  conscientiously  believe. 

And  these  Defendants  further  claim  and  insist  that  a  majority  of  the  Con- 
gregation have  at  all  times  the  right  to  choose  and  select  their  own  minister, 
and  to  enjoy  his  preaching,  so  long  as  he  does  not  depart  materially  from  the 
standard  of  faith  and  practice  of  the  said  Associate  Church,  in  the  opinion 
and  conscientious  belief  of  preacher  and  hearers — and  the  hearers  can  hear 
and  attend  upon  the  ministrations  of  a  minister  Avrongfully  excommunicated 
in  their  opinion  and  belief,  without  a  violation  of  their  solemn  vows  or  any  of 
them,  Avhich  they  took  upon  them  when  they  became  members  of  said  Asso- 
ciate Church,  and  it  is  their  privilege  and  duty  so  to  do — that  the  fathers  and 
founders  of  the  Church  did  the  same,  and  founded  the  Church  upon  these 
principles,  preaching  themselves  under  sentence  of  deposition  and  excommii- 
iiication,  and  such  principles  have  ever  since  been  adhered  to  by  said  Associ- 
ate Church.  And  these  Defendants  further  in  answering  said  original  Bill 
admit,  that  on  or  about  the  21st  day  of  November,  1S26,  the  said  Associate 
Congregation  of  Cambridge  Avas  duly  incorporated  in  the  manner  and  under 
the  name  and  style  set  forth  in  said  l)ill  of  complaint,  and  that  six  Trustees 
of  said  Congregation  were  duly  elected,  as  also  set  forth  in  said  bill  of  com- 
plaint, agreeably  lo  the  laws  of  this  State  and  the  said  act  of  incorporation — 
that  the  Trustees  have  been  divided  into  three  classes,  and  one  third  thereof 
elected  yearly,  and  every  year  since  the  incorporation  of  said  Associate  Con- 
gregation. And  these  Defendants  further  say,  that  the  last  election  for  Trus- 
tees was  regularly  held  in  January  last — and  that  the  names  of  the  Trustees 
now  are,  the  Defendants,  James  Coulter,  James  Shiland,  Robert  McClellan, 
Peter  Hill,  James  T.  Green  and  James  Woods,  all  of  Avhom  adhere  to  the 
Defendant,  Alexander  Bullions,  and  are  anxious  to  attend  upon  his  ministra- 
tions. 

And  these  Defendants  in  further  answering  said  original  Bill  admit,  that 
the  Trustees  of  any  Congregation,  as  such  alone,  have  no  poAver  to  call  or  in 
any  manner  to  obtain  or  procure  a  minister  to  preach  or  officiate  in  such  Con- 
gregation— that  a  clergyman  or  pastor  is  called  in  the  maimer  and  form  stated 
in  said  bill  of  complaint — but  these  Defendants  insist  and  aver  that  no  Pres- 
bytery or  Synod  can  impose  or  send  any  minister  to  preach  in  any  Congrega- 
tion without  the  consent  and  approbation  of  said  Congregation,  nor  have  the 
Presbytery  the  right  to  refuse  to  sanction  a  call  duly  made  by  the  Congrega- 
tion, Avithout  the  strongest  and  most  justifiable  reasons — a  Congregation  being 
considered  in  all  things  to  ha\'e  the  right  and  poAver  to  choose  their  own  min- 
ister, and  the  sanction  by  Presbytery  being  considered  matter  of  form,  and 
of  course,  Avhen  the  Congregation  have  expressed  their  Avishes  to  the  calling 
of  a  particular  minister. 

And  these  Defendants  further  say  that  it  is  not  true,  that  the  Session  or 
Congregation  have  no  poAver  to  supply  the  pulpit  of  any  Congregation  perma- 
nently, temporarily,  or  otheiAvise,  but  on  the  contrary,  the  Session  or  Congre- 


61 

gation  may  not  only  invite  a  minister  in  good  standing  and  full  communion 
with  said  Associate  Church,  to  preach  in  said  Congregation  for  one  or  two 
sabbaths  as  the  exigencies  of  said  Congregation  may  require,  but  said  Session 
or  Congregation  may  invite  such  minister  to  preach  from  sabbath  to  sabbath 
as  long  as  they  shall  judge  it  to  be  expedient  and  proper,  and  no  body  but  the 
Session  and  Congregation  can  permit  any  minister  to  occupy  the  pulpit  of  said 
Congregation,  according  to  the  principles  of  said  Associate  Church.  And 
these  Defendants  in  further  answering  said  original  Bill  admit,  that  the  De- 
fendant Alexander  Bullions,  was  in  or  about  the  year  1808,  called  by  the  said 
Associate  Congregation  of  Cambridge,  in  the  manner  stated  in  said  Bill — that 
said  call  was  in  writing — is  in  the  possession  of  Dr.  Bullions,  and  is  as  stated 
in  said  bill  of  complaint  substantially. 

And  these  Defendants,  in  further  answering  said  original  Bill,  admit  that 
said  call  was  delivered  to  and  received  and  accepted  by  the  said  Alxander 
Bullions  in  the  manner  set  forth  in  said  Bill  of  complaint,  and  such  proceed- 
ings were  thereupon  had,  that  the  said  Alexander  Bullions  was  ordained  and 
installed  as  the  pastor  of  said  Associate  Congregation  of  Cambridge,  and  on 
such  ordination  and  installation  one  of  his  vows  was  in  answering  affirmative- 
ly the  question  contained  in  the  copy  of  said  Bill,  as  last  served  on  the  Soli- 
citor of  these  Defendants,  and  not  the  question  contained  in  said  original  Bill, 
as  is  most  untruly  pretended  in  said  last  copy,  that  the  following  Avords  were 
omitted  in  said  original  Bill,  and  are  now  interpolated  in  said  last  copy,  con- 
taining the  supplemental  and  amended  Bill,  without  being  introduced  by  way 
of  amendment,  to  wit :  "  Remembering  that,  while  they  act  uprightly,  they 
judge  not  for  men  but  for  the  Lord,  who  is  also  with  them  in  the  judg- 
ment,"— that  the  matter  thus  omitted  in  said  original  Bill  forms  a  very  ma- 
terial part  of  said  article  in  the  opinion  and  belief  of  most  ministers  of  said 
Associate  Church,  as  these  Defendants  verily  believe,  and  in  the  opinion  and 
belief  of  these  Defendants,  and  fully  confirms  to  them  the  privilege  of  pro- 
testing against  and  refusing  to  submit  to  any  judgment  of  Presbytery  or  Sy- 
nod which  is  not  upright  and  in  accordance  with  the  word  of  God,  and  which 
they  do  not  conscientiously  believe  to  be  upright  and  righteous. 

And  these  Defendants,  in  further  answering  said  original  Bill,  admit  that 
the  said  Alexander  Bullions  continued  to  be  the  pastor  of  said  Associate  Con- 
gregation of  Cambridge,  under  the  authority  and  government  of  the  As- 
sociate Presbytery  of  Cambridge  until  April,  1838,  but  these  Defendants  deny 
that  the  said  Alexander  Bullions  was  guilty  of  a  series  of  delinquencies  and 
misconduct  on  his  part  at  anytime,  although  these  Defendants  cannot  be  more 
explicit  in  their  denial  of  said  charges  contained  in  said  original  Bill,  for 
want  of  particular  specification  of  the  nature  and  character  of  said  delinquen- 
cies and  misconduct ;  yet  these  Defendants  aver,  that  the  whole  alleged  of- 
fence for  which  the  said  Alexander  Bullions  was  suspended  is  contained  in  the 
following  extract  from  the  minutes  of  the  said  Associate  Presbytery  of  Cam- 
bridge, at  South  Argyle,  Oct.  5th,  1837.  "Dr.  Bullions  having  in  his  re- 
marks insinuated  that  some  member  or  members  present  were  unfit  to  sit  in 
any  Court,  it  was  on  motion  resolved,  that  he  be  required  to  give  the  names  ; 
Dr.  Bullions  refused  to  give  the  names  by  denying  his  former  words,  and  in 
his  remarks  said  Presbytery  might  censure  till  they  were  tired.  It  Avas  on 
motion  resolved  that  Dr.  Bullions  be  censured  for  contempt  of  Court,  in  the 
above  slanderous  insinuation  and  expression,  on  motion  resolved  that  the  cen- 
sure due  to  Dr.  Bullions  be  a  rebuke.  Dr.  Bullions  entered  his  protest  against 
the  minute  recording  his  expression  and  appealed  to  Synod — protest  not  ad- 
mitted— He  protested  against  not  admitting  his  protest;  this  protest  was  ad-? 


62 

iTiitted,  proceeded  to  inflct  the  censure  voted  to  Dr.  Bullions,  he  refused  to 
submit,  protested  and  appealed  to  Synod,  protest  not  admitted,  he  then  pro- 
tested arrainst  the  rejection  of  this  protest  and  appealed  to  Synod  which  was 
admitted.  It  was  then  on  motion  resolved  that  he  be  suspended  from  the  ex- 
ercise of  his  ministry,  and  the  commuion  of  the  Church  till  he  give  evidence 
of  repentance  for  contumacy,  Dr.  Bullions  protested  against  this  decision  and 
appealed,  protest  not  admitted,  he  then  protested  against  the  rejection  of  his 
protest  and  appealed,  this  protest  was  admitted — A  true  extract  attested  by  D. 
CJordon,  Clerk,  P.  T." 

And  these  Defendants  further  say  that  the  proceedings  of  said  Presbytery 
in  said  suspension  were  wholly  illegal,  not  according  to  the  rules  of  the  Church, 
nor  the  word  of  God,  unrighteous,  precipitate  and  void — that  two  of  the  com- 
plainants, John  Kobertson  and  William  Stevenson,  as  these  Defendants  are 
informed  and  believe,  at  the  time,  they  were  had  declared  them  so,  that  the 
said  John  Robertson  publicly  said  that  Presbytery  went  on  faster  than  he  him- 
self could  think,  that  their  proceedings  were  precipitate,  illegal  and  unjust, 
and  the  said  William  Stevenson  declared  in  substance  the  same  thing.  And 
these  Defendants  further  say  that  said  proceedings  of  said  Presbytery  having 
been  wholly  illegal  and  void,  (in  the  belief  of  these  Defendants,)  these  Defen- 
dants were  not  bound  thereby,  and  the  said  Alexander  Bullions  under  his  pro- 
test and  appeal  as  well  as  on  the  ground  that  said  proceedings  Avere  void  in  his 
opinion  and  belief,  had  the  full  right  to  continue  his  ministry  over  said  Asso- 
ciate Congregation  of  Cambridge. 

And  these  Defendants  further  say,  that  said  suspension  on  the  5th  of  Octo- 
ber, 1837,  was  followed  up  by  the  sentence  of  deposition  and  excommunica- 
tion on  the  12th  day  of  April,  1838,  as  contained  in  said  bill  of  complaint,  but 
said  sentence  Avas  altogether  illegal,  unrighteous  and  void — that  the  caid  Pres- 
bytery was  not  legally  constituted — that  four  members  had  been  improperly 
and  illegally  excluded  from  seats  in  its  deliberations — that  members  set  in 
Presbytery  against  the  said  Alexander  Bullions,  who  were  his  accusers,  and 
witnesses  against  him — that  the  said  Alexander  Bullions  on  the  7th  day  of 
February,  1838  had  sent  in  a  declinature  to  the  authority  of  said  Presbytery, 
as  he  avers,  and  as  the  other  Defendants  are  informed  and  believe,  which  he 
had  a  perfect  right  to  do,  and  which  removed  all  proceedings  from  before  them 
— that  the  said  Alexander  Bullions  was  not  present  at  the  meeting  of  Presby- 
tery on  the   12th  April,  1838  or  at  that  meeting  at  all,  and  was  deposed  from 
the  ministry  during  his  absence  against  the  established  principles  and  law  of 
the  Associate  Church,  which  is,  that  no  Presbytery,  unless  it  be  a  Supreme 
Court,  possess  the  power  to  depose  a  minister  of  the  Gospel  in  his  absence  as 
these  Defendants  are  informed,  advised  and  believe — that  the  said  Alexander 
Bullions  was  not  properly  and   legally  notified  and  cited  to  appear  before  said 
Presbytery — that  a  minority  of  said  Presbytery  assumed  to  act,  and  that  the 
whole  proceedings  of  said  Presbytery  were  unrighteous,  illegal  and  void  in  the 
opinion  and  belief  of  these  Defendants,  and  the  Defendant,  Alexander  Bul- 
lions duly  appealed  from  the  proceedings  and  sentence  of  said  Presbytery  to 
the  said  Associate  Synod  of  North  America.     And  these  Defendants  insist  and 
aver  further  that  if  no  appeal  had  been  regularly  taken  to  the  doings  of  said 
Presbytery  in  said  sentences  of  suspension,  deposition  and  excommunication, 
none  was  necessary  as  the  whole  proceedings  were  null  and  void  in  the  opinion 
and  belief  of  these  Defendants,  and  these  Defendants  in  the  conscientious  belief 
that  they  were  so,  had  the  full  right  to  continue  the  said  Alexander  Bullions  as 
their  minister  and  he  had  the  full  right  to  continue  to  officiate  as  the  minister 
of  said  Congregation  agreeably  to  the  principles  of  faith  and  practice  of  the 


63 

said  Associate  Church  and  of  the  said  Associate  Congregation  of  Cambridge^ 
And  these  Defendants  in  further  answering  the  fourth  amendment  to  said 
original  Bill,  subject  to  the  obligation  hereinafter  set  forth  and  not  waiving- 
their  right  under  said  objection,  they  answer  and  say,  that  they  cannot  for 
want  of  particular  specification  of  falsehood,  slandering  his  brethren,  endeav- 
oring to  create  division  in  the  Church  and  the  other  charges  contained  in  said 
fourth  amendment,  fully  answer  the  same  other  than  to  give  a  general  denial- 
of  their  truth,  which  they  hereby  do,  but  these  Defendants  wholly  and  unquali- 
fiedly deny  that  the  said  Alexander  Bullions  had  a  full  and  patient  hearing 
before  the  Presbytery  on  the  charge  alleged  against  him,  but  on  the  contrary 
these  Defendants  insist  and  aver,  that  the  whole  proceedings  before  said  Pres- 
bytery were  partial,  unrighteous  and  unjust,  that  regular  ministerial  members 
were  unlawfully  and  illegally  excluded  from  said  Presbytery,  leaving  a  minor- 
ity of  ministerial  members  of  said  Presbytery,  that  said  Alexander  Bullions 
was  not  present  when  he  was  deposed,  that  he  was  not  legally  cited  before 
said  Presbytery — that  the  whole  proceedings  were  illegal,  unrighteous,  null 
and  void,  and  that  the  said  Alexander  Bullions  was  not  rightfully  and  legally 
deposed,  and  had  a  right  to  hold  as  he  does  hold,  and  as  these  Defendants  hold 
the  whole  proceedings  to  be  null  and  void  and  not  binding,  and  that  conscien- 
tiously believing  so,  he  has  the  full  right  to  exercise  his  ministerial  functions 
as  he  has  done  and  still  does  in  accordance  with  the  rules  and  principles  of  the 
said  Associate  Church. 

And  these  Defendants  in  further  answering  said  original  Bill  admit  that  the 
said  Alexander  Bullions  has  not  at  any  time  since  the  said  deposition  and  ex- 
communication made  submission  to  the  said  Presbytery,  for  the  reason  that  he 
holds  said  proceedings  null  and  void,  as  do  these  Defendants.  And  these 
Defendants  admit,  that  the  said  Alexander  Bullions  appealed  therefrom  to- 
the  said  Associate  Synod  of  North  America,  Avhich  had  full  power  and  juris- 
diction to  hear  said  appeal,  and  which  affirmed  the  decision  of  said  Presbyte- 
ry after  hearing  the  parties,  but  not  on  full  proof,  but  at  a  small  meeting  of 
Synod,  only  46  members  being  present — that  a  protest  was  entered  upon  the 
minutes  of  Synod,  signed  by  several  of  the  ministerial  members,  and  a  pro- 
test was  also  entered  upon  the  minutes  by  Dr.  Bullions,  claiming  that  the 
whole  proceedings  were  null  and  void  till  reviewed  and  reversed,  and  that  the 
said  Alexander  Bullions  claimed  all  his  rights  as  a  minister  of  the  Gospel,  and 
should  discharge  all  the  functions  of  the  Gospel  ministry,  as  though  no  such 
act  had  been  passed,  which  said  protest  these  Defendants  are  ready  to  produce, 
and  prove  whenever  this  Honorable  Court  shall  direct,  and  under  which  they 
insist  and  aver,  that  the  said  Alexander  Bullions  has  a  right  to  exercise  his 
ministerial  functions,  and  thus  preserve  the  rules  of  discipline  of  the  Associ- 
ate Church  unimpaired.  And  these  Defendants  further  admit,  that  the  said 
Alexander  Bullions  was  remitted  to  the  said  Associate  Presbytery  of  Cam- 
bridge, and  that  he  has  declined  to  appear  before  said  Presbytery  for  the  rea- 
sons herein  before  stated — that  he  holds  the  whole  proceedings  null  and  void, 
and  conscientiously  believes  them  so  to  be,  as  he  avers,  and  as  the  other  De- 
fendants herein  named  verily  believe.  And  the  said  Alexander  Bullions  does 
persist  in  preaching  and  in  exercising  the  office  of  the  ministry  over  said  As- 
sociate Congregation  of  Cambridge  for  the  reasons  before  stated,  and  not  in 
defiance  and  contempt  of  the  said  Associate  Presbytery  of  Cambridge  and  the- 
said  Associate  Synod  of  North  America — that  he  continues  to  preach  as  he 
conscientiously  believes  he  has  the  right  to  do  under  the  rules  of  discipline, 
faith  and  practice  of  said  Associate  Church,  and  in  compliance  with  the  wishes 
and  desires  of  four  fifths  of  the  said  Associate  Congregation  of  Cambridge^ 


64 

And  these  Defendants  claim,  say  and  insist,  as  members  of  the  said  Associate 
Congregation  of  Cambridge,  four-liftJis  of  whom  agree  willi  these  Defendants^ 
as  they  are  informed  by  them  and  believe,  that  tlie  said  Defendants  inchiding 
the  said  Alexander  liuliioiis,  have  the  right,  under  the  constitution  and  origin 
of  said  Church,  to  protest  against  said  decisions,  to  refuse  to  submit  to  them, 
and  to  hold  them  null  and  void,  if  they  conscientiously  believe  them  to  be  un- 
just and  unrighteous,  as  these  Defendants  conscientiously  and  sincerely  dc^ 
— that  these  Defendants  and  the  other  members  of  said  Congregation  who 
adhere  to  Dr.  Bullions,  have  not  departed  in  faith,  practice  or  discipline,  from 
the  principles  of  said  Associate  Church,  nor  does  Dr.  Bullions  preach  a  dif- 
ferent Gospel  or  different  doctrines  from  those  which  he  has  preached  and 
practiced  for  the  last  thirty  years,  and  ever  since  his  settlement  over  said  Con- 
gregation— that  he  is  deposed  for  no  error  in  doctrines,  faith  or  practice,  but  for 
refusing  to  submit  to  a  rebuke  for  an  insinuation,  and  Jor  contumacy  in  insis- 
ting on  his  constitutional  rights  of  an  appeal  fronr  the  said  sentence  of  rebuke 
to  a  superior  judicatory.  And  these  Defendants  in  further  answering  said 
original  bill  admit,  that  the  oflice  of  pastor  of  said  Associate  Congregation  of 
Cambridge  was  formally  declared  vacant,  by  the  Associate  Presbytery  of 
Cambridge,  and  that  deed  confirmed  by  the  said  Associate  Synod  of  North 
America,  in  the  manner  stated  in  said  bill  of  complaint,  but  these  Defendants 
insist  and  aver  that  the  said  Presbytery  or  Synod  had  no  power  or  right  under 
the  circumstances  to  declare  said  Congregation  vacant  without  their  consent^ 
and  these  Defendants  claim  that  said  proceedings  are  wholly  null  and  void. 

And  these  Defendants  further  admit  that  the  said  Synod  appointed  the  said 
Alexander  T.  McGill  and  the  Rev.  Joseph  McKie  as  commissioners  to  labor 
m  said  Associate  Congregation  of  Cambridge  in  the  manner  and  for  the  pur- 
poses stated  in  said  original  Bill  of  complaint,  and  that  said  commissioners  ap- 
peared and  attended  at  Cambridge,  at  the  time  and  place  mentioned  in  said 
Bill  of  complaint,  and  these  Defendants  further  admit  that  they  were  notified 
that  the  said  Alexander  Bullions  had  been  suspended,  deposed,  and  excom-- 
municated,  and  the  Congregation  declared  vacant,  and  that  said  commission- 
ers had  been  sent  by  the  said  Synod  for  the  purposes  mentioned  in  said  Bill. 
And  these  Defendants,  except  the  said  Alexander  Bullions  admit  that  they 
shut  the  doors  of  said  Church  against  the  said  commissioners,  and  refused  to 
permit  them  to  enter  the  said  Church,  but  these  Defendants  aver  that  it  is 
positively  and  unequivocally  untrue,  that  they  shut  the  doors  of  said  Church 
at  the  instigation  and  request  of  the  said  Alexander  Bullions,  but  on  the  con- 
trary thereof,  these  Defendants  insist,  state  and  aver  that  they  refused  to  per-' 
mit  the  said  commissioners  to  enter  said  Church,  to  occupy  said  pulpit,  and  to 
preach  or  administer  divine  ordinances  therein  under  the  express  vote  and  di- 
rection of  the  said  Associate  Congregation  of  Cambridge,  four  fifths  of  whorrt 
so  voted  and  directed  these  Defendants,  the  said  Trustees,  And  these  Defen- 
dants further  aver  and  insist  that  the  said  Associate  Synod  of  North  America 
had  no  right  or  power  to  send  commissioners  to  preach  in  said  Associate  Con* 
gregation  of  Cambridge  without  their  consent,  and  these  Defendants,  the  said 
Trustees,  verily  believe  that  they  would  have  been  gnilty  of  a  breach  of  trust, 
if  they  had  permitted  the  said  Commissioners  to  enter  said  pulpit,  contrary  to 
the  wishes  and  against  the  express  directions  of  said  Associate  Congregation 
of  Cambridge. 

And  these  Defendants,  the  said  Trustees,  further  admit  that  they  have  per- 
mitted the  said  Alexander  Bullions  to  occupy  the  pulpit  and  officiate  as  pastor 
and  minister  in  said  church  edifice  or  meeting  house  of  said  Associate  Con- 
gregation of  Cambridge,  and  sustain,  uphold  and  support  him  therein,  in  com- 


65 

mon,  with  the  elders,  trustees  and  four  fifths  of  the  said  Congregation  under 
their  solemn  vote  and   direction,   and  that  these  Defendants,  the  Trustees,  in 
se  doing,  have  only  acted  in  obedience  to  the  wishes  and  direction  of  the  said 
Congregation — that  these  Defendants,  the  said  Trustees,  are  only  in  possession 
of  two  of  the  books  belonging   to  said  Congregation,    and  no   papers,  except 
two  of  the  deeds  mentioned  in  the  said  Bill  of  complaint  belonging  to  the  said 
Congregation — the  other  books  and  papers  including  the  common  seal  of  said 
corporation  being  in  the   possession   of  William    Stevenson,  one  of  the  com- 
plainants, who  claims  to  hold   the  same,  and  entirely  refuses  to  deliver  them 
up  to  the  regular  and  legally  elected  Trustees   of  said   Congregation  as  these 
Defendants  are  informed    and    believe.     And   these  Defendants  pray  that  he 
may  be  compelled   to  restore   said  corporate   property  to  the  Trustees  of  said 
Congregation  by  a  decree  of  this  Honorable    Court.     And  these  Defendants, 
the  said  Trustees,  further  admit,  that  they  have  rented  the  pews  of  said  meet- 
ing-house in  the  usual  ordinary  way  for  a  period  of  five  years  ;  that  said  pews 
were  rented  five  years  previous  to  the  first  day  of  January,    1839,  for  a  period 
of  five  years,  pursuant  to  the  term  of  sale ;  that  at  the  expiration  of  the  said 
term  of  five  years  these  Defendants,  the  said  Trustees,  by  the  vote  and  direc- 
tion of  the  said  Congregation,   and  in   the  usual    manner  caused  public  notice 
to  be  given  that  said   pews  would  be  sold  for  another  period  of  five  years  at 
the  church  edifice,  on  the  first  day  of  January,  1839,  that  on  the  day  appoint- 
ed, the  said  pews  were  sold  at  public  auction,  in  the  usual  manner,  to  the  high- 
est bidder,  all  persons   having   the   right   to  be  present  and  bid  who  were  so 
disposed,  and  these  Defendants,  the  said  Trustees,   djd  not  sell  said  pews  to 
the  exclusion  of  the  said  complainants,  or  any  other  person  whomsoever,  that 
said  complainants  or  any  member   of  said   Congregation  or  any  other  person 
might  have  been  present,    and  bid   and  purchased'  pews  if  they  had  felt  dis- 
posed,  the  sale  being  an  open,  public  and  fair  one — that  these  Defendants 
are  informed  and  believe  that   said  Complainants   knew   of  said   sale,  and 
one  if  not  more  of  them   was  present  at   said  sale — that  they   had  a  meet- 
ing on  the  day  of  sale  near   said  church   edifice,  but  did   not  generally  at- 
tend  said    sale    nor   purchase    any  pews.     And  these   Defendants,   the  said 
Trustees,  do  indeed   in   obedience  to   their   trust  claim   to  hold  and   control 
and  take  care  of  and   preserve    said  real  and  personal  property,  belonging  to 
said   Associate    Congregation    of  Cambridge,   but  these  Defendants,  the  said 
Trustees,  do  not  claim  any  other   control  over  said   property  than  they  are  au- 
thorized and  required  to  exercise,  by  the  said  Associate  Congregation  and  by 
the  laws  of  this  State — that  thej^  do  not  pervert  the  funds  of  said  Congrega- 
tion from   their  appropriate   uses  and  purposes,  but-on  the  contrary  they  apply 
said  funds,  or  did   apply  them,  until  the  injunction  in  this  cause,  according  to 
to  the   directions  of  said  Congregation  and  in  support  of  a  minister  who  min- 
isters according  to  the  principles  of  the  faith   and  practice  of  the  said  Associ- 
ate Church,  and   there  are  no  funds,  except  the  property  in  possession  of  said 
Dr.  Bullions,  nor  have  they  the  said  Trustees  appropriated  any  funds  of  the 
said  Congregation,  to  his  support  since  the  injunction  in  this  cause  ;  and  these 
Defendants  the  said  Trustees,  deny  that   they  have  ever  excluded,  except  in 
the  case  of  the  two  commissioners  as  before  stated,  or  that  they  persist  in  ex- 
cluding clergymen  of  regular  standing,  in  full  communion  with  the  said  Asso- 
ciate Church  and  Congregation  from  preaching  and  administering  divine  ordi- 
nances in  said  church  edifice — but  on  the  contrary  thereof,  several  ministers 
in  full  communion  with  said  Church,  have  preached  in  said  church  edifice  du- 
ring the  two  past  years,  and  since  said  supposed  deposition  of  said  Alexan- 
der Bullions.     And  these  Defendants  have  admitted  and  are  willing  to  admit 
in  said  pulpit  of  said  church  edifice,  ministers  in  regular  standing  in  said 
9 


66 

Church,  and  have  cxchuled  none  except  directed  so  to  do  by  said  Con£Trec:a- 
tion,  beinc;  the  two  cumniissioners  as  before  stated.  And  these  Defendants 
deny  that  they  have  exchuled  or  do  exclude  tlie  said  Complainants  or  any 
other  member  of  said  Cont!;ref!;ation  from  said  church  edifice,  unless  they  will 
consent  to  hear  a  deposed  excoinmnnicated  minister,  or  that  they  have 
excluded  or  do  exclude  said  Complainants  or  any  other  member  of  said  Con- 
gref^ation  from  said  church  edifice,  in  any  way  or  manner  whatever. 

And  these  Defendants  in  further   answering  the  iifth  amendment  to   said 
original  Bill,  subject   to  their   objection  hereinafter  mentioned,   and  without 
waiving  their  right  under  said  objection,  they  answering  say,  that  they  utterly 
and  wholly  deny  that  the  Complainants  and  the  other  members  mentioned  in 
said   amendment   compose   exclusively  the   said   Associate   Congregation   of 
Cambridge,  but  on  the  contrary,  these  Defendants  insist  and  aver,  and  so  state 
the  fact  to  be,  that  said  Complainants  and  their  associates  compose  but  a  very 
small  minority  of  'said  Associate  Congregation  of  Cambridge,  and  that  these 
Defendants,  the   said  Trustees,  and  the   other  members  of  said   Congregation 
who  adhere  to  the  said  Alexander   Bullions,  compose   a  large   majority  of  the 
said  Associate   Congregation  of  Cambridge,  comprising  at  least  four  fifths  of 
said   Congregation.     And  these  Defendants  deny  that  the  said  Presbytery  of 
Cambridge,   at  its  session  on  cr  about  the  27th  day  of  June,    1838,  had  any 
right,  authority  or  power  to   declare,  that  said  Complainants  composed  exclu- 
sively said  Associate  Congregation  of  Cambridge,  or  that  these  Defendants 
and  the  other  members  of  said  Congregation  Avho  adhere  to  the  said  Alexan- 
der Bullions,  did  not  compose  any  part  of  said  Congregation — that  said  Presby- 
tery Avas  not  legally  constituted — that  these  Defendants  and  the  other  mem- 
bers of  said  Congregation,  adhering  to  Dr.  Bullions,  were  not  legally  cited  or 
notified  to  appear  before  them — that  they  possessed  no  right  or  power  whatev- 
er to  declare  who  were  or  who  were   not  the  Associate  Congregation  of  Cam- 
bridge— that  their  whole  proceedings  were  illegal,  Avithout  jurisdiction,  oppres- 
sive, unrighteous,  tyrannical,   and  utterly  and  wholly  null  and   void,  and   not 
binding  in  the  remotest  manner  on  these  Defendants,  or  on  the  other  members 
of  said  Congregation,   adhering  to  the  said  Alexander  Bullions,  according  to 
the  rules  of    discipline,  faith  and  practice   of  said  Associate  Church.     And 
these  Defendants  are  informed  and  verily  believe  were  instituted  for  the  pur- 
pose of  having  and  producing  an  improper  influence  in  this  suit. 

And  these  Defendants  in  further  answering  the  sixth  amendment  to  said 
original  Bill,   subject  to  the  objections  of  these  Defendants  as  hereinafter 
mentioned,  and  without  waiving  their  rights  under  said  objection,  answer  and 
say,  that  they  wholly  deny  that  the  five  former   elders  of  said  Associate  Con- 
gregation, who  now  adhere  to  Doctor  Bullions  after  a  due  and  regular  course 
of  discipline  by  the  Session  of  said  Associate  Congregation  were  duly  suspen- 
ded or  excommunicated  as  stated  in  said  amendment,  or  that  they  ever  were 
suspended  or  excommunicated  according  to  the  rules  of  dicipline  of  said  As- 
sociate Church,  but  on  the  contrary  thereof,  these  Defendants  aver  and  insist 
that  said  five  elders  at  the  very  time  a  certain  portion  of  the  said  minority, 
stjding  themselves  the  Session  of  said  Associate  Congregation,  attempted  to 
suspend  them,  were  and  still  are  a  majority  of  the  Session  of  said  Associate 
Congregation  themselves — that  they  have  never  been  legally  removed,  nor 
have  others  ever  been  legally  chosen  in  their  places  or  either  of  them — that 
said  pretended  Session  had  no  right,  power,  or  authority  to  act  as  such,  their 
acts  were  wholly  null  and  void — they  assumed  to  suspend  the  said  five  elders 
without,  and  in  fact  before  trial,  and  without  proper  citation,  and  their  whole 
proceedings  were  in  the  opinion  and  belief  of  these  Defendants,  a  solemn 


67 

mockery,  contrary  to  the  rules  of  discipline,  faith  and  practice  of  said  Associ- 
ate Church,  and  instituted  for  the  purposes  of  this  suit.  And  these  Defen- 
dants answering  the  first  charge  and  matter  by  way  of  supplement,  in  the 
supplemental  bill,  incorporated  with  said  original  Bill,  aver  and  state  the  fact 
to  be,  that  an  application  \\  as  made  to  this  Court,  on  the  6th  of  August,  1S39, 
for  leave  to  amend  said  original  Bill,  which  said  application  was  denied,  as 
may  appear  by  the  order  of  the  said  Court,  entered  on  that  day — that  in  deci- 
ding said  application,  this  Court  granted  leave  to  said  Complainants  to  file  a 
supplemental  bill  stating  that  they  had  a  right  to  do  so,  ex  parte,  on  their  peril, 
and  to  incorporate  amendments  in  their  said  supplemental  bill,  subjecting 
themselves  to  the  right  of  these  Defendants,  or  any  of  them,  to  demur  to  said 
supplemental  bill,  which  demurrer,  if  sustained,  would  dismiss  the  said  sup- 
plemental bill,  and  the  amendments,  if  any  were  incorporated  therein,  would 
fall  with  said  supplemental  bill — and  these  Defendants  insist,  that  the  said 
supplemental  matter  stated  in  said  bill  is  not  sufficient  to  entitle  Complainants 
to  any  relief,  to  which  they  would  not  be  entitled  under  said  original  Bill — 
and  these  Defendants  pray  the  same  judgment,  and  the  same  rights  and  relief 
in  reference  to  said  supplemental  bill,  as  if  they  had  demurred  to  the  same, 
for  the  reasons  above  stated,  or  for  want  of  equity,  or  for  any  other  purpose — 
and  they  further  pray  that  the  several  matters  incorporated  with  said  supple- 
mental bill,  by  way  of  amendment  may  be  stricken  from  said  bill,  with  the 
supplemental  matter,  in  the  same  way  and  manner,  as  if  these  Defendants 
had  demurred  to  said  supplemental  bill  in  manner  aforesaid. 

And  these  Defendants  not  waiving  their  rights,  but  claiming  them  to  be  the 
same  as  if  they  had  demurred  to  said  supplemental  bill,  in  answer  to  the  first 
matter,  by  way  of  supplement,  deny  that  these  Defendants,  the  said  Trustees 
and  other  of  the  former  members  of  said  Associate  Congregation,  who  adhere 
to  the  said  Alexander  Bullions,  have  been  duly  and  legally  suspended  or  ex- 
communicated by  the  Session  of  said  Associate  Congregation,  or  that  any 
dealings  whatever  have  been  had  with  them,  except  by  a  self  constituted  Ses- 
sion, by  the  minority  of  said  Congregation — that  said  pretended  Session  has 
never  been  legally  constituted  or  organized — that  the  true  and  legally  consti- 
tuted Session  of  said  Associate  Congregation,  belong  to  the  Congregation  ad- 
hering to  Dr.  Bullions,  and  none  other  could  or  can  suspend  or  deal  with  these 
Defendants — that  the  whole  proceedings  of  said  minority  Session  are  wholly 
and  entirely  null  and  void,  and  noc  in  accordance  with  the  principles  and  dis- 
cipline of  the  said  Associate  Church — that  no  Session  in  said  Church  has 
power  to  suspend  before  or  without  hearing  and  trial,  to  be  had  after  the 
regular  citations  of  the  members  to  be  tried — and  these  Defendants  deny  that 
the  portion  of  the  Congregation  adhering  to  Dr.  Bullions  have  been  duly  and 
legally  suspended  till  trials  can  be  had  in  their  respective  cases,  no  Session 
possessing  any  such  power — and  these  Defendants  aver  that  the  whole  doings 
of  said  pretended  Session,  which  is  not  and  never  was  the  regular  and  legal 
Session  of  said  Associate  Congregation  of  Cambridge,  are  illegal,  unrighteous, 
and  utterly  null  and  void,  and  not  binding  or  obligatory  upon  any  individual 
or  individuals,  according  to  the  principles,  faith  and  practice  of  said  Associate 
Church. 

And  these  Defendants,  in  further  answering  the  seventh  amendment  to  said 
original  Bill,  subject  to  the  objections  of  these  Defendants  herein  before  stated, 
and  without  waiving  any  rights  under  said  objections,  they  answer  and  say 
that  they  wholly  deny  that  the  Session  of  said  Associate  Congregation,  by 
whom  the  said  adherents  of  Dr.  Bullions  were  suspended  and  excommunica- 
ted was  in  all  things  duly  and  legally  constituted  and  organized,  (the  term 


GS 

canonical  is  not  known  or  used  in  said  Associate  Church,)  according  to  the 
rules  of  faith,  discipline  and  jrovernment  of  said  Associate  Church,  and  these 
Defendants  deny  that  said  Session  is  the  only  lef^aliy  constituted  Session  of 
said  Church,  but  on  the  contrary  thereof  these  Defendants  aver  and  maintain, 
that  the  only  lei^ally  constituted  Session  of  said  Associate  Congregation  ad- 
heres to  Dr.  Bullions,  that  it  iias  existed  for  a  period  previous  to  his  declared 
deposition  and  still  exists,  that  the  whole  of  the  powers  assumed  by  said  mi- 
nority Session  are  null  and  void  and  without  effect,  and  said  Session  was  never 
duly  and  legally  organized,  and  these  Defendants  further  insist  and  maintain 
and  aver  that  the  act  of  llie  said  Associate  Presbytery  of  Cambridge  of  the 
27th  day  of  June,  1838,  declaring  said  Session  to  be  the  only  duly  organized 
and  legal  Session  of  said  Associate  Congregation  of  Cambridge  was  without 
authority,  and  not  in  accordance  with  the  principles  of  faith  and  practice  of 
said  Associate  Church,  a  power  altogether  assumed  by  said  Presbytery,  with- 
out right,  aad  utterly  and  entirely  null  and  void,  that  said  act  remains  unre- 
versed, but  not  being  in  accordance  with  the  principles  of  faith,  discipline  and 
government  of  said  Associate  Church  is  not  binding  or  obligatory  upon  any 
individual  or  individuals. 

And  these  Defendants,  in  further  ansAvering  the  eighth  amendment  to  said 
original  Bill,  subject  to  the  objections  herein  before  stated,  and  without  waiv- 
ing any  of  their  rights  under  said  objection,  they  answer  and  say  that  they 
wholly  and  utterly  deny  that,  according  to  the  rules  and  principles  of  the  faith, 
practice  and  discipline  and  government  of  said  Associate  Church,  none  of  the 
persons  who  adhere  to  Dr.  Bullions  are  members  of  said  Associate  Church  in 
full  communion,  and  that  they  do  not  individually  or  collectively  form  any  part 
of  said  Congregation  or  any  other  Congregation  adhering  to  the  said  Asso- 
ciate Presbytery  of  Cambridge,  but  on  the  contrary  thereof,  these  Defendants 
aver,  insist  arid  maintain  that  they  form  by  far  the  greater  part  of  said  Asso- 
ciate Congregation  of  Cambridge,  being  about  four  fifths  of  said  Congrega- 
tion, and  are  members  of  said  Congregation  in  full  commimion  with  but  few 
exceptions,  that  they  are  recognized  as  such  by  their  own  Session  which  is  the 
only  legally  constituted  Session  of  said  Congregation,  according  to  the  rules 
of  faith  and  practice  in  said  Associate  Church,  that  they  have  never  been  le- 
gally and  properly  cut  off  by  the  said  Associate  Presbytery  of  f^ambridge,  and 
the  act  of  said  Presbytery,  pretending  to  cut  them  off  and  refusing  to  recognize 
them  as  the  Associate  Congregation  of  Cambridge,  was  and  is  as  herein  be- 
fore stated  wholly  and  utterly  null  and  void,  and  these  Defendants  deny  that 
they  or  the  other  adherents  to  Dr.  Bullions,  to  the  best  of  their  knowledge,  in- 
formation and  belief,  on  the  11th  day  of  June,  1838,  or  at  any  other  time  or 
ever  abjured  and  repudiated  the  authority  of  the  said  Associate  Presbytery 
and  Synod,  and  the  Presbyterian  form  of  Church  government,  but  on  the  con- 
trary thereof,  these  Defendants  aver  and  insist  and  maintain  that  they  still 
adhere  most  fully  to  the  principles  of  faith  and  practice,  discipline  and  Church 
government  of  said  Associate  Church,  and  have  not  departed  therefrom  in 
word  or  deed,  but  hold  fast  to  their  faith  and  practice,  exercising  their  rights 
of  conscience,  protest  and  appeal,  as  herein  before  set  forth,  but  not  acting  in 
hostility  to  said  Church  Courts,  or  in  defiance  thereof. 

And  these  Defendants  further  deny  that  they  as  Trustees  appropriate  the 
property  of  the  said  Associate  Congregation  to  and  for  the  use  and  purposes 
for  which  it  was  intended,  but  on  the  contrary  thereof  these  Defendants  aver, 
maintain  and  insist  that  they  did  appropriate  said  property  and  funds  until  re- 
strained by  this  Honorable  Court  as  it  was  originally  intended  and  agreeable 
to  the  wishes,  votes  and  directions  of  the  said  Associate  Congregation  of  Caiti- 


69 

bridge,  and  the  legally  constituted  session  thereof,  in  the  suppoT  of  the  min- 
istrations of  the  said  Alexander  Bullions  who  is  both  a  minister  and  a  member 
of  said  Associate  Church,  and  they  permit  said  Alexander  Bullions,  to  preach 
in  said  church  edifice  by  the  direction  of  the  Session  and  four-fifths  of  the  con- 
gregation most  of  whom  are  members  in  full  communion  in  said  Associate 
Church  in  manner  before  fully  stated  and  set  forth. 

And  these  Defendants  in  further  answering  said  original  Bill,  admit  that 
the  Defendants,  James  Coulter,  James  Shiland,  Robert  McClelland  and  Peter 
Hill,  together  with  William  Stevenson  and  William  Robertson,  two  of  the 
Complainants  were  until  the  first  day  of  April,  1839,  the  Trustees  of  said  As- 
sociate Congregation  of  Cambridge,  but  that  James  T.  Green  was  duly  elect- 
ed to  fill  the  place  of  William  Robertson,  whose  seat  became  vacant  by  expir- 
ation of  his  term  of  office  on  the  first  day  of  April,  1S39,  and  was  duly  qual- 
ified and  took  his  seat  at  the  time  as  such  Trustee,  and  that  James  Woods  was 
duly  elected  at  the  last  annual  election  to  fill  the  place  of  William  Stevenson 
whose  seat  became  vacant  by  the  expiration  of  his  term  on  the  first  day  of 
April,  1840,  who  took  his  seat  on  that  day  as  such  Trustee — that  the  six  Trus- 
tees of  said  Associate  Congregation  of  Cambridge  are  the  four  Defendants 
first  above  named,  and  the  said  James  T.  Green  and  James  Woods  all  of  whom 
adhere  to  the  said  Alexander  Bullions  and  wish  to  attend  his  ministry.  And 
this  Defendant,  the  said  Alexander  Bullions,  in  further  answering  said  original 
Bill,  denies  that  he  has  ever  been  applied  to  in  a  friendly  manner  to  desist 
from  preaching  in  said  pulpit  of  said  church  edifice  of  said  Associate  Congre- 
gation of  Cambridge,  or  from  administering  divine  ordinances  therein,  and 
these  Defendants,  the  Trustees,  deny  that  they  have  ever  been  applied  to  in 
a  friendly  manner  to  exclude  the  said  Alexander  Bullions  from  the  said  church 
edifice,  in  the  manner  stated  in  said  original  Bill  of  complaint,  or  to  permit 
other  ministers  to  preach  therein,  or  to  permit  the  complainants  and  their  asso- 
ciates to  occupy  said  church  edifice  in  the  manner  stated  in  said  original  Bill 
of  complaint  thereof,  but  these  Defendants  admit  that  they  have  been  required 
by  said  Complainants,  in  behalf  of  themselves  and  their  associates,  to  comply  with 
the  requisitions,  above  and  in  said  bill  of  complaiiit  specified,  in  any  other  than 
a  friendly  manner,  and  that  they  have  declined  to  comply  with  said  require- 
ments, for  the  reasons  herein  before  and  hereinafter  stated. 

And  these  Defendants,  the  said  Trustees  aver,  maintain  and  insist,  that  they 
have  the  full  right  in  execution  of  their  trusts,  to  employ  and  permit  the  said 
Alexander  Bullions  to  preach  in  said  church  edifice,  and  to  administer  divine 
ordinances  therein,  while  a  large  majority  of  said  congregation,  being  four- 
fifths  thereof,  request  and  require  these  Defts.  the  said  Trustees  so  to  do,  as  said 
Congregation  have  the  sole  right  to  employ  such  minister  as  they  choose, 
when  he  does  not  materially  vary  from  the  standard  of  faith  and  practice  in 
the  said  Church  as  Dr.  Bullions  does  not.  And  these  Defendants  do  not  pre- 
tend nor  claim  to  have  the  right  to  appropriate  the  property  and  effects  of  said 
Congregation  to  any  other  use  than  it  was  originally  intended.  And  these 
Defendants  do  not  appropriate  them  to  any  other  use  than  to  the  support  of  a 
minister  adhering  to  the  principles  of  faith  and  practice  of  the  said  Associate 
Church,  in  the  free  exercise  of  his  privileges  and  rights  of  conscience  as  be- 
fore fully  stated  and  set  forth.  And  these  Defendants  further  insist  upon,  aver 
and  maintain  that  the  said  Alexander  Bullions  on  the  third  day  of  July,  1838, 
was  after  being  subjected  to  certain  discipline,  regularly  admitted  a  member 
of  the  Presbytery  of  Vermont,  of  which  he  is  now  a  regular  member,  and  as 
such  a  member  of  the  Associate  Synod  of  North  America — that  said  Associate 
Presbytery  of  Vermont  had  full  power  and  authority  to  admit  the  said  Alex- 


70 

andcr  Bullions  as  a  member  thereof  notwithstanfliiifr  he  resided  within  the 
limits  of  the  Presbytery  of  Cambvidsj^e.  Tliat  tlit'  fact  of  the  said  Thomas 
Goodwillie  having:  once  been  a^brothcr-in-law  of  the  said  Alexander  Bullions, 
and  of  the  said  Mr.  Prinole  being  the  son-in-laAV  of  the  said  Alexander  Bul- 
lions, did  not  dis(]ualify  them  or  either  of  them  from  aciinj^  as  members  of 
said  Presbytery  accordinq;  to  the  principles  of  said  Associate  Church — that 
they  were  unjustly,  illei^ally  and  improperly  prevented  from  acting  while  mem- 
bers of  the  Associate  Presbytery  of  Cambridge  agreeably  to  the  rules  of  dis- 
cipline and  practice  of  said  Associate  Church  as  stated  in  said  original  bill  of 
complaint. 

And  these  Defendants  in  further  answering  the  second  supplemental  mat- 
ter contained  in  said  original,  supplemental  and  amended  bill  insisting  upon 
their  rights  before  stated  the  same  as  though  they  had  demurred  to  said  sup- 
plemental matter,  they  answer  and  say,  that  they  admit  that  the  said  Associ- 
ate Synod  of  North  America  at  their  session  on  or  about  the  2r5th  day  of  May, 
1839,  at  Pittsburgh  in  the  state  of  Pennsylvania,  did  suspend  the  said  Asso- 
ciate Presbytery  of  Vermont  from  the  exercise  of  all  Presbyterial  authority 
till  the  next  meeting  of  Synod,  in  the  manner  and  for  the  alleged  reasons  sta- 
ted in  said  second  supplemental  matter  in  said  bill  of  complaint,  and  said 
Presbytery  of  Vermont  were  cited  to  appear  at  the  next  meeting  of  Sjmod  for 
trial,  and  were  placed  under  the  care  and  jurisdiction  of  the  Presbytery  of 
Cambridge  until  the  next  meeting  of  Synod.  And  these  Defendants  aver,  in- 
sist and  maintain,  that  the  act  of  said  Associate  Synod  in  thus  suspending  said 
Presbytery  of  Vermont,  was  wholly  contrary  to  the  principles  of  faith,  practice 
discipline  of  said  Associate  Church,  and  was  null  and  void,  and  of  no  binding  ef- 
fect whatever — that  it  is  contrary  to  the  rules  and  discipline  of  said  Church 
for  the  Synod  to  suspend  a  Presbytery  without  citing  them  to  appear  or  affbr- 
dino-  them  an  opportunity  to  be  heard  in  their  defence,  that  said  Associate  Pres- 
bytery of  Vermont  were  not  cited  to  appear  before  said  Synod  at  its  meeting, 
in  May,  1839,  nor  was  said  Presbytery  or  its  members  present  at  said  meeting 
.of  Synod  as  these  Defendants  are  informed  and  believe,  nor  had  they  any  op- 
portunity of  being  heard  in  their  defence,  and  it  is  a  thing  unheard  of,  and 
unknown  in  said  Church  to  place  one  Presbytery  under  the  care  of  an  other 
— that  in  consequence  of  said  arbitrary,  unconstitutional,  illegal,  unrighteous 
and  tyrannical  decision,  the  said  Presbytery  of  Vermont  have  entered  their 
.solemn  protest  against  it,  which  said  protest  by  the  rules  and  discipline  of  said 
Associate  Church,  entitles  them  to  maintain  their  standing,  and  exercise  their 
functions  as  a  Presbytery,  until  said  protest  is  rightly  decided  in  the  opinion 
;and  belief  of  these  Defendants. 

And  these  Defendants  further  say,  insist  and  maintain  that  the  further  act 
iOf  said  Associate  Synod,  at  its  said  session  in  May,  1839,  declaring  the  act  of 
said  Presbytery  of  Vermont,  admitting  the  said  Alexander  Bullions  as  a  mem- 
,ber,  and  restoring  him  to  his  standing  in  said  Associate  Church,  to  be  null  and 
■void,  was  altogether  contrary  to  the  rules  of  discipline  of  said  Associate 
Church,  and  Avholly  null  and  void,  that  said  Presbytery  of  Vermont  should 
have  been  regularly  cited  to  answer  for  said  act,  and  have  had  an  opportunity 
of  defending  themselves  which  they  had  not,  that  the  whole  of  the  proceed- 
ings of  said  Associate  Synod  of  North  America  at  its  Session  in  May,  1839, 
refative  to  said  Presbytery  of  Vermont  and  relative  to  the  said  Alexander 
Bullions  were  illegal,  oppressive,  unrighteous  and  null  and  void,  that  John 
Robertson,  one  of  "the  Complainants  in  this  cause,  and  who  had  before  set  in 
the  Presbytery  of  Cambridge  on  the  trial  of  said  Alexander  Bullions,  and  v^ho 
was  not  appointed  a  delegate  to  said  Associate  Synod,  attended  said  meeting 
of  Synod,  and  was  permitted  by  said  Synod  to  take  his  seat  as  an  assumed 


71 

member  thereof,  and  voted  on  the  questions  concerning  the  said  Presbytery  of 
Vermont,  and  the  deposition  of  the  said  Dr.  Bullions  as  he  ought  not' to  have 
done,  and  had  no  right  to  do  under  the  circumstances,  and  when  proceedino-s 
were  finished,  immediately  requested  a  copy  in  open  meeting,  certified  by  the 
Clerk  of  Synod,  remarking  at  the  time  that  they  had  an  important  bearing-  on 
a  suit  then  pending  in  the  Court  of  Chancery  of  this  State,  alluding  to  this 
suit,  and  these  Defendants  further  say  that  the  Rev.  Messrs.  Miller  and  An- 
derson, two  of  the  members  of  the  Presbytery  of  Cambridge,  who  had  set  in 
judgment  upon  Dr.  Bullions  in  Presbytery  voted  in  said  Synod  against  the 
said  Presbytery  of  Vermont,  as  they  ought  not  to  have  done. 

And  these  Defendants  have  no  doubt  and  verily  believe,  and  so  charge  the 
fact  to  be,  that  the  whole  of  said  proceedings  of  said  Associate  Synod  of  North 
America,  in  May,  1839,  relative  to  said  Presbytery  of  Vermont,  and  to  said 
Alexander  Bullions  were  illegal,  unrighteous,  and  contrary  to  the  rules  of  dis- 
cipline of  said  Associate  Church,  and  were  procured  for  the  special  and  ex- 
press purpose  of  producing  an  improper  influence  and  bearing  upon  this  suit, 
then  and  now  pending  in  this  Honorable  Court.  And  these  Defendants  fur- 
ther in  answering  as  to  the  pretences  in  said  original  Bill  and  to  the  charo-es 
grounded  thereon,  say  that  they  do  not  pretend  that  the  said  Alexander  Bul- 
lions is  willing  to  submit  to  decisions  of  the  said  Associate  Presbytery  of  Cam- 
bridge and  the  Associate  Synod  of  North  America,  in  their  present  unrio-hteous 
and  illegal  form — but  he  claims  and  insists,  and  these  Defendants  claim  and 
insist  that  he  has  a  right  to  hold  said  decisions  null  and  void,  and  to  continue 
his  ministry  under  his  protest,  until  said  unrighteous  decicions  are  rescinded 
and  reversed,  if  in  his  conscience  he  believes  them  unrighteous,  and  if  these 
Defendants  believe  them  to  be  so  according  to  the  principles  of  faith,  discipline 
and  practice  in  the  said  Associate  Church — that  the  said  Alexander  Bullions 
is  willing  to  submit  m  all  things  to  the  decisions  of  said  Presbytery  and  Sy- 
nod, when  legally  and  righteously  made — but  this  Defendant,  the  said  Alex- 
ander Bullions  did  say,  to  the  best  of  his  recollection  and  belief,  that  he  would 
not  belong  to  said  Presbytery  one  hour,  even  if  they  would  restore  him  imme- 
.  diately — and  this  Defendant,  the  said  Alexander  Bullions  has  said  that  he  had 
no  desire  to  belong  to  said  Presbytery  of  Cambridge  so  long  as  their  decisions 
continued  to  be  contrary  to  the  principles  of  faith  and  practice  in  the  Church,', 
and  to  the  word  of  God. 

And  these  Defendants  in  further  answering  the  charges  grounded  on  said 
pretences,  insist  upon  and  claim,  maintain  and  aver  that  the  said  Alexander 
Bullions  has  the  full  right  to  exercise  his  ministerial  functions,  as  he  is  now 
doing,  under  his  protest,  notwithstanding  the  decisions  of  said  Presbytery  and 
Synod,  provided  he  conscientiously  believes,  as  he  does  conscientiously  be-- 
lieve,  said  decisions  to  be  unrighteous  and  unjust,  and  contrary  to  the  rules  of 
faith,  discipline  and  practice  of  the  said  Associate  Church.  And  these  Defen- 
dants also  conscientiously  believe  said  decisions  to  be  unrighteous  and  unjust,, 
and  have  the  full  right,  in  accordance  with  the  principles  of  said  Associate 
Church,  to  hear  him  preach,  and  to  appropriate  the  property  and  effects  of  said 
Associate  Congregation  of  Cambridge,  nor  is  it  necessary  in  order  to  entitle- 
the  said  Alexander  Bullions  to  preach,  that  the  said  decisions  of  Presbytery 
and  Synod  be  rescinded,  and  he  be  formally  restored  and  reinstalled  in  the' 
manner  stated  in  the  charges  in  said  bill  of  complaint,  according  to  the  rules- 
and  practice,  discipline  and  government  of  said  Associate  Church. 

And  these  Defendants  in  further  answering  the  third  supplemental  matter 
charged  and  set  up  in  said  supplemental,  amended  and  original  bill,  subject  to 
their  objections  heretofore  taken,  and  without  waiving  any  of  their  rights 
therein,  they  answer  and  say  that  they  did  pretend  and  insist  and  claim  that 


72 

the  decisions  of  said  Synod,  nffirmin^  said  decisions  of  Prcshytcrj'  of  Cam- 
bridrre  was  not  final  and  concliisiv(«,  and  was  liable  to  be  reviewed,  and  the 
said  Doctor  Bullions  protested  ai^ainst  tlie  same  for  that  purpose,  but  did  not 
appear  at  the  last  meetin<T  of  Synod  to  have  the  same  rey-ularly  bruught  up 
for  a  hearing — that  said  Synod  proceeded  to  determine  and  declare  at  their 
meeting  in  May,  1839,  that  said  act  was  final  and  conclusive,  and  they  refu- 
sed to  reconsider,  review  or  modify  it  in  any  manner,  and  remitted  the  said 
Alexander  Bullions  to  the  Presbytery  of  Cambridge,  and  all  this  in  the  ab- 
sence of  this  Defendant,  the  said  Alexander  Bullions,  and  without  any  oppor- 
tunity to  be  heard  on  his  part  and  at  the  instigation  of  John  Robertson,  one  of 
the  Complainants  in  this  cause,  and  Messrs.  Miller  and  Anderson,  as  these  De- 
fendants arc  informed  and  believe,  for  the  purpose  of  producing  an  improper 
influence  in  this  suit — that  the  whole  proceedings  of  Synod  were  illegal,  un- 
righteous and  unjust,  unconstitutional  and  mill  and  void,  as  it  regarded  the 
said  Defendant,  Alexander  Bullions,  and  they  were  so  regarded  by  at  least  six- 
teen of  the  ministers  and  elders  composing  a  part  of  said  Associate  Synod  of 
North  America,  who  on  the  30th  May,  1839,  claimed  to  file  their  written  re- 
monstrance against  said  proceedings,  and  claimed  to  have  it  entered  on  the 
minutes  of  said  Synod,  but  were  refused;  a  copy  of  which  remonstrance  is  in 
the  possession  of  these  Defendants,  and  is  ready  to  be  produced  and  proved 
whenever  this  Honorable  Court  shall  direct. 

And  these  Defendants  insist,  aver  and  maintain  that  the  said  Alexander  Bul- 
lions concsientiously  holding  and  believing  as  do  these  Defendants  the  said  last 
decision  of  Synod  to  be  unrighteous,  not  in  accordance  Avith  the  principles  of 
the  Church  and  with  the  word  of  God,  has  the  full  right  to  continue  his  min- 
istry as  he  does  according  to  the  principles  of  the  said  Associate  Church.  And 
these  Defendants  further  insist,  aver  and  maintain  that  by  the  laws  of  the  land, 
each  Christian  Congregation  has  the  right  to  select  and  choose  its  own  minister 
and  to  elect  its  own  Trustees  to  take  the  care  and  custody  of  the  temporalities 
of  the  Church,  and  that  a  large  majority  being  at  least  four  fifths  of  the  said 
Associate  Congregation  of  Cambridge  have  directed  and  do  direct  these  De- 
fendants the  said  Trustees  to  continue  the  said  Alexander  Bullions  as  their 
minister,  and  these  Defendants  insist  upon  and  contend  that  so  long  as  a  ma- 
jority of  said  Associate  Congregation  are  in  favor  of  the  said  Alexander  Bul- 
lions and  desire  to  attend  upon  its  ministrations,  he  can  not  by  the  laws  of  the 
land  be  ousted  from  said  Church  or  lawfully  enjoined  from  preaching  therein, 
in  consequence  of  the  unrighteous  decisions  of  any  ecclesiastical  court  or  tri- 
bunal. 

And  these  Defendants  deny  all  unlawful  combination  and  confederacy  in  the 
said  bill  charged  without  that,  that  any  other  matter  or  thing  in  the  said  sup- 
plemental amended  and  original  bill  contained  and  not  herein  and  hereby  well 
and  sufficiently  answered  unto,  confessed  and  avoided,  traversed  or  denied,  is 
true  to  the  knowledge  and  belief  of  these  Defendants. 

All  which  matters  and  things,  these  Defendants  are  ready  to  aver,  maintain 
and  prove  as  this  Honorable  Court  shall  direct,  and  humbly  pray  to  be  hence 
dismissed  with  their  reasonable  costs  and  charges  in  this  behalf  most  wrong- 
fully sustained. 

B.  Blair,  SoVr.  for  D efts.  \  ALEXANDER  BULLIONS, 

C.  L.  Allen,  of  Counsel  (  JAMES  COULTER, 

JAMES  SHILAND, 
PETER  HILL, 
JAMES  T.  GREEN, 
ROBERT  McCLELLAN, 
JAMES  WOODS. 


7a 

State  of  New-York,  )  On  this  21st  day  of  April  1840,  before  in6  per- 
AVashington  County,  SS.  )  sonally  appeared  the  above  named  Alexander  Bul- 
lions, James  Coulter,  James  Shiland,  Robert  McClellan,  James  T.  Green,  and 
James  Woods,  and  severally  made  oath  before  me  that  they  have  severally- 
heard  the  above  answer  by  them  severally  subscribed,  read  and  know  the  con- 
tents thereof,  and  that  the  same  is  true  of  their  own  knowledge  except  as  to 
the  matters  which  are  therein  stated  to  be  on  their  information  or  belief,  and 
as  to  those  matters  they  believe  it  to  be  true. 

KIRTLAND  WARNER,  Commissioner  of  Deeds. 


IN  CHANCERY, 

BEFORE  THE 

CHANCEL.L.OR. 

William  Stevenson,  William  Robertson,  William  McGeoch,  Edward  Small,. 
John  McArthur,  James  McArthur,  Robert  McArthur,  Peter  McArthur, 
George  Small,  John  Arnott,  James  Arnott,  Edward  Cook,  John  Robertson, 
Thomas  McMorris,  James  Hoy,  John  McDouall,  Isaac  Ashton,  John  Fos- 
ter, and  William  Livingston. 

vs. 

Alexander  Bullions,  James  Coulter,  James  Shiland,  Robert  McClellan,  Pe- 
ter Hill,  and  the  Associate  Congregation  of  Cambridge,  of  the  County  of 
Washington,  adhering  to  the  principles  of  the  Associate  Presbytery  of 
Pennsylvania,  formerly,  now  the  Associate  Synod  of  North  America. 

Washington  County,  SS,  :  Thomas  Shiland,  Daniel  McFarland,  David  Rob- 
ertson, Robert  Doig,  George  Maxwell,  James  Coulter,  2d,  Thomas  Graham, 
David  Shiland,  John  W.  Graham,  Thomas  McLean,  William  Green,  George 
Wr  Robertson,  William  Shiland,  and  Thomas  Green,  being  severally  .duly 
sworn,  depose  and  say  that  they  are  severally  members  of  the  Associate  Con- 
gregation of  Cambridge,  and  have  severally  heard  the  above  answer  read  and 
know  the  contents  thereof,  and  that  the  same  is  true  of  their  own  knowledge,, 
except  as  to  the  matters  which  are  therein  stated  to  be  on  information  and  be- 
lief, and  as  to  those  matters  they  believe  it  to  be  true. 

Sworn  this  21st  day  of  April,  )  THOMAS   SHILAND, 


1840,  before  me,       J  DANIELD  McFARLAND,- 

KIRTLAND  WARNER,  DAVID  ROBERTSON, 

Commissioner  of  Deeds.  ROBERT  DOIG, 

GEORGE  MAXWELL, 
JAMES  COULTER,  2d, 
THOMAS  GRAHAM, 
DAVID  SHILAND, 
JOHN  W.  GRAHAM, 
THOMAS  McLEAN, 
WILLIAM  GREEN, 
G.  W.  ROBERTSON, 
WILLIAM  SHILAND 
THOMAS  GREEN. 

The  cause  was  heard  Before  the  Chancellor  on  the  Demurrer  to   the  suple- 
mental  Bill,  and  the  same  was  dismissed  with  costs. 

General  replications  were  put  in  by  the  Complainants  to  the  answers  of  thef 
Defendants,  taking  issue  on  the  same. 
10 


IN    CHANCERY: 
BefoeetheChancellor. 

David  Gordon's  Deposition. 

William  Stevenson,  et  al, 

vs. 
Alexander  Bullions,  et  al 


Deposition  of  David  Gordon,  a  witness  produced,  swom  and  examined  in  a 
certain  cause  now  pending  in  the  Court  #f  Chancery  of  the  State  of  New- 
York,  before  the  Chancellor  of  said  State,  wherein  William  Stevenson,  Wil- 
liam Robertson,  William  McGeoch,  Edward  Small,  John  McArthur,  Jamea 
McArthur,  Robert  McArthur,  Peter  McArthur,  George  Small,  John  Arnot,  James 
Arnot,  Edward  Cook,  John  Robertson,  Thomas  McMorriss,  James  Hoy,  John 
McDoual,  Isaac  Ashton,  John  Foster  and  William  Livingston,  members  of  the 
Church  in  full  communion,  known  as  the  Associate  Congregation  of  Cam- 
bridge, of  the  County  of  Washington,  in  the  State  of  New  York,  adhering  to 
the  principles  of  the  Associate  Presbytery  of  Pennsylvania,  formerly,  now  the 
Associate  Synod  of  North  America,  are  Complainants,  and  Alexander  Bullions, 
James  Coulter,  James  Shiland,  Robert  McClelland,  and  Peter  Hill,  Trustees  of 
the  Associate  Congregation  of  Cambridge,  together  with  the  Associate  Congre- 
gation of  Cambridge,  of  the  County  of  Washington,  adhering  to  the  principles 
of  the  Associate  Presbytery  of  Pennsylvania  formerly,  now  the  Associate  Synod 
of  North  America,  are  Defendants  on  the  part  of  the  said  Complainants,  before 
James  Gibson,  one  of  the  Examiners  in  Chancery  of  said  State,  at  the  house  of 
Chester  Safford,  jr.,  in  the  town  of  Salem,  in  the  County  of  Washington,  com- 
mencing on  the  nineteenth  day  of  October,  in  the  year  1841,  as  follows,  viz  : — 
The  Rev.  David  Gordon,  produced  as  aforesaid,  duly  sworn  and  now  exam- 
ined by  Mr.  Fairchild,  of  counsel  for  Complainant,  deposeth  as  follows  : — 

I  am  a  resident  of  the  town  of  Salem,  in  the  County  of  Washington,  and 
the  State  of  New  York.  I  am  by  profession  a  clergyman  of  the  Associate 
Church,  and  am  about  thirty-seven  years  of  age.  I  am  a  member  of  the 
Presbytery  of  Cambridge.  I  have  been  a  member  of  that  Presbytery  since 
the  year  1832 — since  that  time  I  have  been  settled  over  a  Congregation  and 
Church  attached  to  that  Presbytery,  situate  in  the  town  of  Salem.  I  was 
present  at  a  meeting  of  the  Presbytery  in  South  Argyle  on  the 4th  of  October, 
1837,  when  Dr.  Bullions  was  suspended.  The  meeting  was  continued  over 
until  the  next  day.  When  the  meeting  commenced,  there  were  ten  or  eleven 
members  present — all  that  usually  attend. 

Mr.  Allen,  of  counsel  for  Defendants,  objects  to  the  testimony,  because  the 
minutes  will  shew  who  attended,  and  they  ought  to  be  produced — being  the 
only  proper  evidence. — Objection  over-ruled,  and  evidence  received.  The 
Presbytery  was  at  that  meeting  properly  constituted  according  to  the  rules  of 
procedure  of  the  Associate  Church.  There  was  matter  of  charge  against  Dr. 
Bullions,  took  its  rise  during  that  meeting. 
Question. — What  was  that  charge  ? 

Objected  to  by  Mr.  Allen,  of  counsel  for  Defendants,  because  the  minutes 
are  proper  evidence  to  shew  Avhat  the  charge  was. — Objection  over-ruled  by 
the  Examiner,  and  the  evidence  received. 

Defendants  offer  to  shew  that  this  charge  about  which  parole  testimony  is 
offered  is  contained  on  the  minutes  of  the  Presbytery,  and  those  minutes  ought 
to  be  produced.     Offer  over-ruled  and  the  evidence  over-ruled. 


76 

The  witness  elates  that  the  matter  of  charge,  was  for  slander  and  contempt 
of  court,  and  the  slander  consisted  in  asserting  that  a  member  or  members 
present  on  the  court  were  not  fit  to  sit  on  any  court.     This  assertion  was  not 
given  by  Dr.  Bullions  as  of  his  own  knowledge,  but  he  gave   it  as  matter  of 
common  report  which  he  wished  to  have  believed  in  as  much  as  he  proposed 
it  as  a  reason  for  postponing  the  business  in  hand.     When  Dr.  Bullions,  was 
required  to  give  the  names  of  these  persons  that  order  might  be  taken  with 
them,  he  would  not,  but  denied  his  having  said  so.     He  then  added  that  he 
had  stated  only  that  which  was  common  report,  and  if  the  court  were  of  a 
mind  to  censure  him  for  that,  they  might  censure  till  they  were  tired.     These 
two  things  were   the  matters  of  charge  against  him  in  the  commencement. 
The  slander  and  contempt  consisted  in  what  I  have  stated. 
There  was  another  offence  however  super-added  to  these,  before  the  suspen- 
sion took  place,  this  was  contumacy ;  which  consisted  in  an  obstinate  refusal 
to  submit  to  the  censure  adjudged  by  the  court,  or  to  be  corrected  according  to 
order. 

Before  he  was  suspended  he  made  reference  to  letters  on  which  he  groun- 
ded his  charge  against  these  members  or  member,  which  he  said  were  in  the  po- 
session  of  George  Mairs,  Jr.  and  Peter  Gordon.  He  also  stated  that  the  matter 
charged  against  said  member  or  members  were  for  error  in  doctrine  and  immorali- 
ty in  practice.  Before  the  sentence  of  suspension  was  actually  inflicted,  he  gave 
the  names  of  four  members,  Mr.  Anderson,  Mr.  Miller  and  Alexander  and  Da- 
vid Gordon,  as  being  the  persons  referred  to. 

I  am  the  David  Gordon  mentioned  by  Dr.  Bullions  as  being  one  of  the  per- 
sons referred  to  by  him  as  unfit  to  sit  in  any  court. 

Question  by  Mr,  Fairchild  of  counsel  for  Complainants.— Was  there  any  evi- 
dence presumptive  or  otherwise  by  whom  the  charges  mentioned  by  Dr.  Bul- 
lions were  originated  ? 

Objected  to  by  Mr.  Allen,  on  the  grounds  that  it  is  immaterial  and  irrele- 
vant, not  charged  in  the  bill  and  not  within,  the  issue  and  the  whole  of  this 
testimony  is  objected  to  so  far  as  it  relates  to  charges  before  Presbytery  for  the 
same  reasons.  The  Examiner  over-rules  the  objection  and  receives  the  evi- 
dence. The  witness  says  there  was  an  anonymous  letter  in  the  hands  of  Mr. 
Miller,  which  by  its  contents  seemed  to  answer  the  description  the  Doctor 
had  given,  and  there  was  another  in  my  hands  the  same  in  substance  with  Mr. 
Miller's,  and  the  only  backing  on  the  letter  in  my  posession  was  in  the  hand- 
writing of  Dr.  Bullions,  and  a  note  within  the  letter  I  received,  at  the  bottom 
of  the  letter  also  in  the  hand-writing  of  Doctor  Bullions. 

There  Avere  a  considerable  number  of  people  present  at  the  time  Dr.  Bul- 
lions made  the  charges  I  have  specified — most  of  those  people  present  were 
members  of  Mr.  Miller's  Congregation  ;  but  there  were  some  present  who 
were  members  of  the  other  Congregation. 

Question  by  Mr.  Fairchild. — Do  you  know  whether  it  was  proved  that  Dr. 
Bullions  originated  the  letters  specified  by  you? 

Question  objected  to  by  Mr.  Allen,  on  the  grounds  that  it  is  immaterial,  and 
that  the  witness  is  giving  in  evidence  matters  of  opinion,  and  not  the  facts  on 
which  the  proof  was  founded.  Objection  overruled  and  evidence  received. 
Then  witness  states  that  it  was  at  an  after  meeting  of  the  Presbytery,  proved 
that  Dr.  Bullions  originated  the  letters  in  question. 

Question  by  Mr.  Fairchild. — What  was  the  manner  of  Dr.  Bullions  towards 
the  court  at  its  meeting,  commencing  on  the  4th  of  October, 

Objected  to  and  received.  His  language  and  manner  on  this  occasion  was 
far  from  respectful,  and  after  the  time  he  made  the  expressions  referred  to  and 


76 

at  the  time  when  Presbytery  was  cndcavoririj^  to  take  order  with  him,  respec- 
ting such  expressions,  he  was  so  boisterous  and  disorderly  that  it  was  necessa- 
ry for  the  moderator  to  silence  him  for  that  sittinn-,  according  to  the  rules  of 
the  book  of  discipline  article  6th,  at  the  bottom  of  page' 13;  also  article  12th, 
rule  11th,  at  the  latter  part  of  the  rule.  The  letters  which  were  proved  be- 
fore the  Court  to  have  been  originated  by  Dr.  Bullions,  were  the  same  on 
which  he  prepared  to  ground  his  charge  against  the  members  of  Presbytery 
before  specified.  All  Church  Courts  have  the  right  to  censure  for  a  contempt 
of  their  authority.  The  censure  to  be  inflicted  for  a  contempt  must  depend 
upon  the  nature  of  the  offence ;  and  it  may  be  as  high  as  the  deposition  of 
the  officer.  The  censure  to  be  inflicted  must  be  in  the  judgment  of  the  Court 
in  a  measure  ;  that  an  olTence  that  is  the  same  as  to  the  act  itself,  may  be  va- 
rious as  to  the  agofravation,  according  to  common  sense,  and  to  an  express  rule 
of  the  Associate  Church-  See  Perdivan's  collections,  book  4th,  title  first,  sec- 
tion 4th. 

Dr.  Bullions  at  this  same  meeting  denied  the  correctness  of  the  minutes  in 
which  Avas  recorded  the  language  he  had  used.  He  was  requested  and  urged 
to  specify  wherein  the  minutes  were  incorrect,  but  did  not  and  would  not  do  it. 

Question  by  Mr.  Fairchild. — When  Presbytery  was  about  to  pass  the  vote 
of  censure,  did  any  thing  occur  making  it  necessary  for  the  moderator  to 
silence  the  Doctor  for  that  sitting,  before  Presbytery  could  proceed  to  the  vote? 
Objected  to  as  irrelevant,  and  received  by  the  examiner. 

The  witness  states  that  he  before  stated  that,  while  Presbytery  were  deal- 
ing with  him,  endeavoring  to  take  order  with  respect  to  the  expressions,  he 
Avas  so  boisterous  and  disorderly  that  it  was  necessary  to  deprive  him  of  a 
voice  and  vote  during  that  sitting  ;  this  silencing  continued  till  a  recess  and 
the  Court  came  into  session  once  more. 

The  silencing  of  Dr.  Bullions  did  not  extend  to  preventing  him  from  voting, 
but  only  from  debate.  The  moderator  did  not  exclude  him  from  voting,  but 
only  from  debate  at  that  sitting. 

The  imposition  of  silence  was  removed  in  the  afternoon  of  the  same  day, 
at  the  time  of  the  commencement  of  the  Court  after  the  recess  was  over. — 
After  the  moderator  had  silenced  Dr.  Bullions,  the  Court  adjudged  his  con- 
duct worthy  of  rebuke,  but  did  not  proceed  to  inflict  any  censure  till  after  the 
silence  was  removed  as  before  stated  When  silence  was  imposed  by  the  mo- 
moderator  upon  Dr.  Bullions,  he  complied  with  the  order,  but  I  can  not  say  that  he 
obeyed  immediately.  I  have  an  indistinct  recollection  that  something  was  said 
about  sending  for  an  oflicer  to  remove  him.  While  the  Doctor  was  called  upon  to 
submit  to  the  rebuke,  he  refused  to  submit  to  it,  and  protested  against  it,  and 
appealed  to  Synod  ;  but  his  protest  was  not  admitted.  And  he  then  protested  a- 
gainst  the  rejection  of  his  protest,  whichwas,  and  I  believe  always  is  admitted. 
Presbytery  has  a  right  to  reject  the  protest  in  the  first  instance  according  to  the 
Book  of  Discipline,  part  3d,  article  12th.  If  the  protest  is  rejected,  they  have  a 
right  to  proceed  in  the  business  and  trial.  And  if  they  should  find  him  guilty 
they  have  a  right  to  pass  judgment  and  depose  or  excommunicate  the  .accused. 
I  do  not  recollect  any  other  authority  than  the  one  cited,  but  such  is  the  practice. 
I  would  add  that  without  such  power  a  culprit  could  at  any  time  nullify  any  de- 
cision or  business  before  the  lower  court  by  protesting  against  the  dscisions. 
The  principle  or  ground  of  the  right  of  protest  is  that  the  party  protesting, 
professes  to  consider  himself  aggrieved,  and  the  lower  court  are  willing  that 
he  have  a  further  hearing  before  the  higher  courts,  but  it  does  not  imply  that 
the  lower  court  believe  they  have  been  guilty  of  any  injustice  in  their  procee- 
dings.   There  is  no  written  rule  suspending  proceedings  on  a  protest  against  an 


77 

ict  which  would  produce  an  irremedible  evil.  In  such  a  cause  as  that  how- 
ever the  practice  would  be  to  admit  the  protest.  In  case  for  instance  there 
v/as  a  protest  against  the  celebration  of  a  marriage,  and  that  protest  not  ad- 
mitted, I  presume  the  court  would  not  actually  proceed  though  I  am  aware  of 
no  written  rule  to  prevent  them.  In  such  case  delay  of  the  marriage  would  I 
presume  be  the  less  evil. 

The  effect  of  receiving  a  protest  against  the  rejection  of  a  protest  Avould  be 
in  the  first  place  when  accompanied  by  an  appeal,  to  send  the  cause  to  the 
higher  court,  and  no  protest  can  be  admitted  without  an  appeal  to  the  higher 
court.  A  second  protest  accompanied  by  an  appeal  necessarily  takes  the  case 
to  the  higher  court.  The  appeal  necessarily  takes  the  cause  to  the  higher 
court,  together  with  all  the  subsequent  proceedings.  I  would  refer  to  page  61, 
article  12,  part  3d  of  the  Book  of  Discipline,  as  authority  for  this. 

At  the  meeting  of  Presbytery,  commencing  October  4th,  it  was  repeatedly 
intimated  in  substance,  that  Dr.  Bullions  would  not  be  held  responsible  for  the 
reports  for  the  mere  mention  of  them  there,  provided  he  concurred  with  the 
court  in  investigating  them.  When  I  say  "  concurred"  I  mean  using  all  the 
means  in  his  power  to  have  the  truth  brought  out,  and  when  I  say  "  he  would 
not  he  held  responsible"  I  mean,  if  he  were  not  found  to  be  the  author  of  them. 
I  do  not  give  this  answer  as  having  occurred  in  so  many  words,  but  in  sub» 
stance,  it  occurred  as  I  have  stated.  Dr.  Bullions  did  not  comply  with  these 
intimations.  I  do  not  recollect  his  particular  words,  but  that  he  neither  re- 
tracted his  offensive  expressions,  nor  submitted  to  the  censure  of  the  Court, 
nor  acted  in  concurrence  with  the  Court  for  the  investigation  of  the  charges 
made  by  him.  He  was  required  to  give  the  ground  upon  which  he  made  his 
charge,  or  concur  with  the  Court  in  investigating  the  same ;  this  he  did  not  do. 

A  letter  is  produced  by  Complainants,  and  marked  as  Exhibit  H,  which  the 
witness  says  is  the  one  alluded  to  in  the  former  part  of  his  testimony,  as  being' 
in  his  possession.  This  document  is  objected  to  by  Mr.  Allen,  of  counsel  for 
Defendants,  on  the  same  grounds  as  to  the  previous  part  of  the  testimony  of 
this  witness.     Objection  over-ruled  and  the  evidence  received  by  the  examiner. 

The  witness  says  that  he  would  explain  what  he  formerly  stated  relative  to 
the  only  backing  on  the  letter  being  in  the  hand-writing  of  Dr.  Bullions,  as 
follows : — -the  direction  of  the  letter  is  all  that  is  in  his  hand-writing  on  the 
back— that  is  as  follows  : — 

"Rev.  A.  Bullions, D.  D. 

Cambridge, 

N.  Y." 

The  post  note  is  as  follows  : — "  N.  B.  Let  Mr.  D.  Gordon  have  a  reading  of 
the  above." 

Complainants'  counsel,  produces  another  letter  which  the  witness  states  he 
believes  to  be  the  one,  which  he  stated  was  in  the  posession  of  Mr.  Miller,  and 
which  letter  is  marked  as  Exhibit  I  on  part  of  Complainants.  I  have  seen  the 
letter  before — saw  it  in  the  posession  of  Mr.  Miller,  before  the  meeting  of  the 
Presbytery — don't  recollect  of  seeing  it  at  the  meeting  of  Presbytery — saw  it 
afterwards  at  a  subsequent  meeting  of  the  Presbytery  in  Argyle. 

Question — What  was  the  sentence  passed  upon  Dr.  Bullions,  at  this  meeting 
of  the  Presbytery  held  October  4th  1837? 

Question  objected  to  on  the  grounds  before  stated.  Evidence  received. 
Witness  answers,  he  was  first  adjudged  to  a  rebuke,  but  upon  his  refusing  to 
submit  to  that,  the  Presbytery  was  finally  shut  up  to  suspend  him  from  the  ex- 
ercise of  the  ministry  and  the  fellowship  of  the  Church. 


78 

Question. — Was  there  any  other  censure  or  course  proper  for  Presbytery  to 
adopt  under  the  circumstances  ? 

Objected  to  by  Mr.  Allen,  on  same  grounds  as  before.  Evidence  received 
by  the  Examiner.  I  do  not  know  of  any  other.  The  sentence  passed  by  Pres- 
bytery, was  the  lesser  sentence  of  excommunication.  Before  the  sentence  of 
suspension  was  finally  passed  by  Presbytery,  Dr.  Bullions  gave  nothing  which 
the  Presbytery  could  consider  as  evidence  of  submission  or  repentance.  Two 
ministers  and  an  elder  must  be  present  at  a  Presbytery,  to  constitute  a  quorum 
according  to  the  Book  of  Discipline,  part  1st,  article  4th.  I  have  no  recoUec- 
lection  that  at  this  meeting  any  member  of  Presbytery  was  deprived  of  the 
privilege  of  speaking  or  voting  on  the  case  of  Dr.  Bullions.  The  next  meet- 
ing of  Presbytery  was  a  pro  re  natu  meeting,  called  at  Cambridge,  and  con- 
vened there  about  a  month  after  the  meeting  at  Argyle.  At  that  meeting 
every  member  of  the  Presbytery  was  present,  with  an  exception  of  an  elder 
from  the  Putnam  Congregation.  At  that  meeting  Thomas  Goodwillie,  Wil- 
liam Pringle,  and  Archibald  White  second,  were  excluded  from  voting  on  the 
case  of  Dr.  Bullions.  I  was  a  member  of  that  Presbytery  and  was  present. 
The  grounds  of  this  exclusion  were  relationship  and  manifest  partiality ;  Mr. 
Goodwillie  being  the  brother-in-law  of  Dr.  Bullions,  and  Mr.  Pringle  his  son- 
in-law — and  they  together  with  Mr.  White,  adjudged  also  to  have  shown 
great  partiality — their  exclusion  was  according  to  the  rule  laid  down  in  the 
collection  of  Perdivan,  in  book  4th,  title  5th,  section  9th,  and  on  page  194 
and  195. 

It  is  the  practice  of  the  Associate  Church  to  exclude  members  from  being 
judges  in  case  they  are  relatives  of  the  accused.  It  is  always  done  when  ob- 
jections are  made. 

I  consider  the  exclusion  of  the  three  persons  I  have  named  as  proper,  accor- 
ding to  the  book  of  discipline.  This  was  a  pro  re  natu  meeting,  called  for 
the  purpose  of  hearing  the  repentance  of  Dr.  Bullions.  That  is,  Dr.  Bullions 
had  given  some  reason  to  expect  that  he  would  on  this  occasion  make  submis- 
sion or  confession,  that  would  be  satisfactory  to  the  termination  of  the  diffi- 
culties. There  were  commissioners  present  at  the  meeting  of  Presbytery  on 
the  part  of  the  Cambridge  Congregation.  The  call  served  on  me  by  the 
moderator,  contained  a  statement  that  the  meeting  was  called  by  the  desire  of 
the  Congregation  of  Cambridge  ;  but  I  do  not  remember  whether  this  call 
was  in  writing.  Mr.  Allen  objects  to  the  testimony  on  the  ground  that  it  is 
hearsay,  and  information  only,  and  not  proper  evidence.  Objection  over-ruled 
and  the  evidence  received. 

The  commissioners  present  at  this  meeting,  claiming  to  represent  the  Con- 
gregation of  Cambridge,  were  John  Robertson  and  James  Lourie. 

Question  by  Mr.  Fairchild. — Did  j-ou  hear  those  two  comiiissioners  state, 
before  Presbytery,  the  object  for  which  they  requested  this  meeting  to  be  cal- 
led in  the  presence  of  Dr.  Bullions  ?  Question  objected  by  Mr.  Allen,  of 
counsel  for  Defendants,  as  irrelevant  and  immaterial,  and  calling  for  hearsay 
testimony,  and  that  the  minutes  of  the  Presbytery  and  the  Congregation  of  Cam- 
bridge will  best  show  what  were  the  proceedings.  Objection  over-ruled  by 
the  examiner,  and  evidence  received. 

The  witness  states  that  the  commissioners  from  the  Congregation  of  Cam- 
bridge stated  in  the  presence  of  Dr.  Bullions  and  before  the  Presbytery,  that 
they  considered  that  they  had  evidence  to  believe  that  the  Doctor  would  now 
comply  with  order  so  that  the  difficulties  might  be  satisfactorily  terminated 
— this  is  the  substance  of  what  they  stated,  but  I  do  not  pretend  to  give  their 
identical  words.     Doctor  Bullions  made  no  objections  against  this  statement. 


79 

At  this  meeting  he  did  not  make  any  confession  or  submission,  but  he  deliv- 
ered a  statement  which  was  adjudged  wholly  accusatory  in  its  nature  of  the 
Presbytery.  What  I  have  now  stated  took  place  when  the  Presbytery  first 
entered  on  its  business. 

Question  by  Mr.  Fairchild,  of  counsel  for  Complainants.— Do  you  know 
whether  previous  to  this  time,  Presbytery  had  occasion  frequently  to  censure 
Dr.  Bullions  for  contemptuous  conduct  and  unfounded  statements,  or  other  de- 
parture from  duty?  Question  objected  by  Mr.  Allen,  of  counsel  for  Defen- 
dants on  the  same  grounds  as  given  before.  Evidence  received  by  the  exam 
iner. 

The  witness  states  that  since  the  year  1830,  Dr.  Bullions  had  been  repeat- 
edly found  guilty  of  misconduct  and  delinquencies,  and  censured  for  them  by 
Presbytery,  Synod,  and  commission  of  Synod.  He  got  along  with  these  cases 
by  retracting  or  submitting  to  Presbytery  or  other  Courts. 

Question  by  Mr.  Fairchild. — Had  any  thing  occurred  to  induce  the  belief 
that  these  submissions  were  insincere  ?  Question  objected  to  as  asking  for 
the  opinion  of  the  witness,  and  as  to  his  belief.  Question  amended  by  adding 
when  and  where  did  these  things  occur,  and  state  the  same. 

By  the  commission  which  sat  in  Salem,  in  1832,  Dr.  Bullions  was  found 
guilty  of  a  number  of  instances  of  violations  of  duty,  for  which  he  was  ad- 
monished, and  submitted  to  the  admonitions  of  the  commissioners,  and  after- 
wards gave  out  that  though  he  submitted,  he  did  not  admit  the  truth  or  jus- 
tice of  the  decision,  notwithstanding  his  confession  and  submission  to  it.  And 
at  a  meeting  of  the  Presbytery  of  Cambridge,  after  the  meeting  of  Synod  in 
1834,  suspension  was  removed  from  him  upon  his  agreeing  to  certain  requisi- 
tions appointed  to  be  made  of  him  by  Synod,  one  of  which  was  that  he  should 
never  or  no  more  cause  the  agitation  in  the  Church,  of  those  matters  for  which 
he  had  been  suspended.  He  confessed  his  sin  and  professed  his  sorrow  for 
his  part  in  these  matters,  and  solemly  agreed  to  their  requisitions  ;  neverthe- 
less revived  them,  and  renewed  these  troubles  so  that  it  became  necessary  for 
Presbytery  to  take  it  up  again.  There  were  other  instances,  but  I  could  not 
give  the  dates  of  them,  when  he  confessed  his  sin  and  professed  his  sorrow, 
and  would  again  repeat  the  same  conduct.  I  would  add  that  after  having  thus 
conducted,  he  did  at  Argyle,  at  a  meeting  of  Presbytery,  declare  publicly  that 
for  all  the  matters  for  which  he  had  been  censured  by  Presbytery,  Synod  and 
Commission,  he  had  never  confessed  sin  before  God,  and  that  an  unsuitable 
reading  of  a  portion  of  scripture  had  given  him  more  concern,  or  words  to  that 
effect.  Presbytery  at  the  yro  re  natu  meeting  in  Cambridge,  for  these  rea- 
sons, passed  a  resolution  that  strong  evidence  of  sincere  repentance  was  nec- 
essary to  satisfy  Presbytery,  according  to  common  sense,  and  the  rule  in  Per- 
divan's  Collection,  book  4th,  title  first,  section  7th.  Also  the  book  of  disci- 
pline, part  3d,  article  9th.  Submitting  to  censure  does  not  always  imply  con- 
fession and  repentance,  but  in  a  general  way  it  does. 

If  a  person  is  convicted  of  a  sin,  restoration  without  an  acknowledgement 
and  repentance,  would  be  contrary  to  the  principles  of  the  Associate  Church, 
At  the  pro  re  nalu  meeting  in  Cambridge  requisitions  were  drawn  up  for  Dr. 
Bullions  to  comply  with,  which  are  I  believe  contained  in  the  mmutes»  The 
Doctor  was  not  required  at  the  pro  re  natu  meeting  in  Cambridge  to  answer 
all  the  requisitions.  The  reason  was,  that  he  should  have  time  allowed  him 
to  answer  them  except  one  which  he  was  required  to  answer  immediately — 
this  was  the  fifth  requisition.  The  Fifth  requisition  is  as  follows  : — That  Dr. 
Bullions  either  retract  his  declarations,  as  unfounded  and  slanderous — that  four 
members  of  thia  Presbytery  are  unfit  to  set  as  members  of  thk  court  on  sup- 


M 


so 

position  of  certain  reports  in  possession  of  Messrs.  Peter  Gordon  and  George 
Mairs,  are  true,  or  on  tJic  otiier  Jiaud,  that  he  pledge  himself  to  Presbytery  la 
produce  these  reports  for  Presbytery's  judgment,  and  in  the  latter  case,  that 
he  remain  under  suspension  till  he  produce  them  to  Presbytery.  Dr.  Bullions 
answered  affirmatively,  that  he  retracted  as  the  said  re(juisition  requires,  as 
unfounded  and  slandersus  the  declaration  that  four  members  of  this  Presbyte- 
ry are  unfit  to  set  as  members  of  this  court  on  supposition  that  certain  reports 
in  possession  of  Messrs.  Peter  Gordon  and  George  Mairs  are  true* 

I  do  not  remember,  that  any  new  sentence  or  censure,  was  inflicted  on  Dr. 
Bullions  at  this  meeting,  I  knoAV  there  was  no  new  sentence  or  censure  inflic- 
ted— there  was  nothing  but  a  refusal  to  remove  the  censure  which  had.  been 
previously  inflicted.  His  case  was  not  brought  to  an  end  at  this  time.  Dr* 
Bullions  had  time  given  him  to  prepare  his  answers  to  the  other  requisitions 
till  the  next  meeting  of  Presbytery  which  was  at  the  Associate  Church  in  Sa- 
lem about  a  month  after.  He  was  required  to  be  present  at  that  meeting  and 
to  give  in  his  answers  to  the  remaining  requisitions. 

That  meeting  was  held  at  the  appointed  time  at  the  church  of  the  Associate 
Congregation  in  Salem,  by  adjournment  I  believe.  At  this  meeting  there  were 
present  more  members  than  were  necessary  to  form  a  quorum.  Dr.  Bullions 
was  present  at  this  meeting.  He  handed  in  his  answers  in  writing  to  re- 
quisitions.    Presbytery  considered  them  evasive  and  not  satisfactory. 

Dr.  Bullions  at  that  meeting  expressly  refused  to  confess  that  he  was  un- 
feignedly  sorry  for  the  slanderous  charge  contained  in  the  fifth  requisition. 

Mr.  Stalker  was  excluded  from  a  vote  at  this  meeting  of  Presbytery. 

Mr.  Stalker  was  excluded  at  this  time  because  he  had  so  prejudged  the 
case  so  as  to  make  himself  a  party.  This  exclusion  was  lawful  according 
to  the  rules  of  the  Associate  Church.  See  book  4th,  title  5th,  section  9th  of 
Perdivan,  I  do  not  remember  that  on  this  occasion  any  other  member  was 
excluded.  This  Presbytery  was  rigtly  constituted  according  to  the  rules  of 
government  of  the  Associate  Church.  And  as  such,  had  jurisdiction  over  the 
case  of  Dr.  Bullions.  The  proceedings  of  the  Presbytery  were  regular  accor- 
ding to  the  rules  of  procedure  of  the  Associate  Church.  At  the  meeting  of 
the  Presbytery  in  Salem  I  stated  publicly  before  the  Presbytery  closed  its  ses- 
sion, and  about  the  time  of  its  closing,  in  the  presence  of  Dr.  Bullions,  that  Dr. 
Bullions  himself  had  written  or  caused  to  be  written  the  slanderous  letters 
against  members  of  Presbytery,  to  which  he  had  referred  at  the  meeting  of 
Presbytery  in  Argyle,  commencing  October  4th,  1S37.  I  added  that  he  had 
circulated  them  to  different  persons,  and  one  had  come  to  me. 

Dr.  Bullions  made  no  complaint  to  Presbytery  of  this  statement.  John 
Robertson  required  that  the  statement  should  be  recorded;  the  meaning  of  its- 
being  recorded,  is,  that  it  might  afterwards  be  called  up  and  investigated  as 
to  the  truth  or  falsehood  of  it.  I  was  put  on  trial  for  making  this  apparently 
slanderous  statement,  and  held  accountable  for  it. 

Question. — When  did  your  trial  come  on  ?  This  question  objected  to  by 
Mr.  Allen,  as  irrelevant,  immaterial,  and  not  within  the  issue. 

The  examiner  over-ruled  the  objection  and  received  the  testimony. 

My  trial  came  on  at  a  Presbyterial  meeting  which  was  held  at  the  church 
of  the  Associate  Congregation  in  Salem,  on  the  7th  day  of  March,  in  the  year 
1838.  It  was  unanimously  decided  at  that  meeting  that  I  had  proved  the 
truth  of  my  statement. 

Order  was  then  taken  to  put  Dr.  Bullions  on  trial  for  writing  or  causing  to  be 
written  or  circulating  these  slanderous  letters.  Dr.  Bullions  was  cited  to  ap- 
pear at  the  next  meeting  of  Presbytery.     This  citation  was  with  certificatio»r 


8} 

that  if  he  failed  to  appear,  Presbytery  would  decide  upon  that  case,  accumulat- 
ing it  with  his  other  offences. 

At  the  meeting  of  Presbytery,  at  which  I  made  the  expression  ao^ainst  Dr. 
Bullions,  it  was  recorded  as  a  faulty  expression,  which  any  one  could  call  up 
that  pleased  ;  it  was  called  up  at  a  meeting  of  Presbytery  held  at  the  Churclx 
of  the  Associate  Congregation  in  Hebron,  in  February,  183S.  I  was  then  or- 
dered to  be  put  on  trial,  and  such  trial  came  on  in  March,  as  before  stated. — 
At  the  meeting  of  Presbytery  in  February,  1838,  at  Hebron,  Dr.  Bullions  sent 
in  a  total  declinature  of  the  authority  of  Presbytery ;  this  certainly  was  not  a 
lawful  declinature,  because  it  totally  disowned  the  authority  of  the  court  over 
him,  and  denied  the  right  constitution  of  the  court. ,  See  collection  by  Stewart 
of  Perdivan,  book  4th,  title  5th,  section  9th,  sentence  second. 

Dr.  Bullions  was  cited  to  appear,  and  be  tried  with  certification,  as  before 
stated,  which  was  issued  at  the  meeting  held  in  Salem,  on  the  7th  clay  of 
March,  in  the  year  1838,  which  citation  was  retiirnable  at  a  meeting  of  Pres- 
bytery, appointed  to  be  held  at  Mr.  Miller's  Church,  in  Argyle,  on  the  second 
Tuesday  of  April  then  next. 

This  meeting  of  Presbytery  was  duly  held  at  the  time  appointed.  That 
Presbytery  was  rightly  constituted.  There  was  testimony  before  the  Presby- 
tery that  the  citation  before  issued  had  been  duly  served,  and  his  written  re- 
fusal to  attend,  comprehending  also  his  renewed  declinature  of  the  authority 
of  Presbytery. 

The  Presbytery,  at  this  time,  certainly  had  jurisdiction  over  the  Doctor  and 
over  the  case.     He  did  not  appear  at  all  before  Presbytery  on  this  occasion. 

Presbytery,  after  waiting  till  the  last  day  appointed  for  it,  to  wit,  Thursday 
the  12th  day  of  April,  1838,  proceeded  to  try  the  case.  According  to  the  cer- 
tification. Presbytery  proceeded  to  try  him  in  his  absence,  and  found  him  guil- 
ty in  the  matters  charged  relative  to  the  anonymous  letters,  and  accumulated 
it  with  his  other  offences,  and  pronounced  a  sentence  of  deposition  upon  him 
as  he  was  adjuged  worthy.  The  proceediiigs  against  Dr.  Bullions  on  this  oc- 
casion were  regular  and  according  to  the  rules  of  government  of  the  Associate 
Church.  I  do  not  remember  of  any  dissenting  vote  on  the  occasion.  For  the 
authority,  as  to  the  regularity  of  the  proceedings  against  Dr.  Bullions  on  the 
last  trial  above  mentioned  in  his  absence,  I  Avould  refer  to  the  Book  of  Disci- 
pline, part  third,  article  second,  toward  the  bottom  of  the  page.  I  consider 
Dr.  Bullions  as  unlawfully  absent  on  this  occasion.  See  collection  by  Stewart 
of  Perdivan,  book  4th,  title  3rd,  section  19th,  also  22nd  section  of  same  title. 
And  in  form  of  process  attached  to  the  collections  by  Stewart  of  Perdivan,  in 
chapter  7th,  paragraph  6th.  At  this  meeting  of  Presbytery  I  do  not  remember 
that  any  memzber  was  excluded  from  voting.  The  renewed  declinature  of  Dr. 
Bullions  sent  in  by  Dr.  Bidlions,  accompanied  with  his  written  refusal  to  ap- 
pear, was  not  a  lawful  declinature,  it  was  of  the  same  character  Avith  the 
preceeding  declinature. 

The  deposition  inflicted  by  the  Presbytery  on  this  occasion  was  accompanied 
with  a  suspension  from  the  fellowship  of  the  Church,  which  is  the  same  thing 
as  is  commonly  called  the  lesser  sentence  of  excommunication.  A  sentence 
of  suspension  is  hot  in  all  cases  equivalent  to  the  lesser  sentence  of  excom- 
munication ;  a  suspension  for  trial  is  not  a  censure,  but  merely  a  necessary 
precautionary  measure.  The  effect  of  a  suspension  for  trial  is  to  suspend  the 
member  from  church  privileges  till  a  trial  can  be  had.  See  Book  of  Disci- 
pline, page  56. 

The  case  of  Dr.  Bullions  was  afterwards  before   Synod  at  the  meeting  in 
Philadelphia,  in  May,  1838.     It  came  before  Synod  by  consent  of  Cambridge 
11 


82 

Presbytery.     See  minutes  of  Synod  for  the  year  1838,  and  on  the  26th  pagc- 
Soe  "Exhibit  B"  on  the  ))art  of  Cojnphiiiiants. 

I  was  present  at  this  meetin<j^  of  Synod  ;  this  Synod  was  certainly  rightly 
constituted  and  regularly  convened,  and  it  certainly  had  lawful  jurisdiction 
and  full  authority  over  the  case  of  Dr.  Bullions  when  before  it. 

It  was  regular  for  the  Synod  to  proceed  in  the  case,  altliough  Dr.  Bullions 
had  not  taken  all  the  regular  steps  to  bring  the  case  properly  up,  provided  the 
Presbytery  of  Cambridge  consented  to  its  coming  before  Synod. 

Synod  had  a  right  to  judge  and  finally  determine  the  (juestion  as  to  the 
correctness  or  incorrectness  of  the  deed  of  the  Presbytery  of  Cambridge,  de- 
posing Dr.  Bullions.  As  authority  for  this,  see  Book  of  Discipline,  part  first, 
article  5th. 

The  question  on  the  proceedings  of  Presbytery,  as  to  the  case  of  Dr.  Bul- 
lions was  fully  before  Synod  by  the  consent  of  Presbytery  and  of  Dr.  Bul- 
lions. 

Question  by  Mr.  Fairchild,  of  counsel  for  Complainants. — Do  you  know 
whether  Synod  heard  all  the  evidence,  pleadings  and  arguments  oflered  by 
Dr.  Bullions,  or  to  sustain  the  proceedings  of  Presbytery  against  him,  before 
Synod  finally  passed  on  the  case  ? 

Mr.  Allen  objects  to  the  question  on  the  grounds  that  parole  evidence  should 
not  be  given  of  what  can  only  be  proved  by  the  minutes  of  Synod. 

Objection  over-ruled  and  the  evidence  received  by  the  examiner. 

Answer  by  the  witness — I  do  know  that  Synod  heard  all  the  evidence, 
pleadings  and  arguments  offered  by  Dr.  Bullions,  or  to  sustain  the  proceed- 
ings of  Presbytery  against  him,  before  Synod  finally  passed  on  the  case. 

Dr.  Bullions  conducted  his  own  case  and  argued  it  in  person. 

The  final  decision  of  the  Synod  appears  on  Exhibit  B,  page  30  ;  the  deci- 
sion, as  there  stated  as  being  given  by  Synod  is  correctly  entered  on  the  min- 
utes. I  know  some  of  the  persons  who  voted  in  the  negative,  they  we5e 
nine  in  number,  37  and  the  moderator  voted  in  the  affirmative.  David  Good- 
willie,  one  of  the  members  who  voted  in  the  negative,  is  a  brother-in-law  of 
Dr.  Bullions,  and  was  at  the  time  of  voting.  Dr.  Bullions  married  Mr.  Good- 
wlllie's  sister,  who  was  his  first  wife ;  she  is  not  living,  and  was  not  at  this 
time.  Some  of  Dr.  Bullions'  children,  by  his  first  wife,  are  living— I  know 
several  of  them  that  are  now  living.  The  decision  of  Synod  in  Dr.  Bullions' 
case  was  final.  According  to  the  rules  of  church  courts  no  one  could  move 
for  a  re-consideration  unless  he  had  voted  in  the  affirmative,  when  the  ayes 
had  a  majority  as  was  the  case  here.  I  recollect  that  the  resolution  of 
Synod,  by  which  it  declares  that  Dr.  Bullions  has  no  right,  under  his  protest, 
to  exercise  his  ministry,  was  passed  by  Synod,  as  is  stated  on  the  minutes  of 
Synod  for  the  year  1838.  See  page  30  of  Exhibit  B,  on  the  part  of  Com- 
plainants. 

The  request  of  Dr.  Bullions  on  said  page  30,  for  time  to  make  and  draw  up 
his  protest,  was  verbal  at  that  time,  and  no  written  protest  was  then  given. 

Question  by  Mr.  Fairchild  of  counsel  for  Complainants. — In  the  protest 
thus  verbally  made,  did  Dr.  Bullions  say  a.ny  thing  which  amounts  to  a  decli- 
nature ?  Question  objected  to  by  Mr.  Allen  of  counsel  for  Defendants  on  the 
ground  that  the  minutes  shew  what  he  did  say,  and  parole  evidence  of  such 
statement  is  improper  and  calls  for  the  opinion  of  the  witness.  Objection 
over-ruled  by  the  examiner,  and  the  evidence, received. 

The  witness  states  that  he  did  not  at  that  time  say  any  thing  which  amount- 
ed to  a  declinature.  I  was  a  member  of  Synod  in  the  year  1839 ;  it  met  in 
Pittsburgh  in  May,  1839. 


83 

Question  by  Mr.  Fairchild  of  connsel  for  Complainants.  Look  on  page  23 
of  Exhibit  A,  on  part  of  Complainants.  Is  the  matter  on  said  page  commen- 
cing with  the  words, — "The  subscriber  protests,"  and  ending  on  page  24  with 
the  signature  of  "  Alexander  Bullions,"  a  protest  simply  or  any  more,  and  if 
more,  what  ?  declare. 

The  question  is  objected  to  by  Mr.  Allen,  of  counsel  for  Defendants,  as  not 
asking  for  any  fact,  but  merely  the  opinion  of  the  witness.  The  objection  is 
over-ruled  by  the  Examiner,  and  the  witness  testifies.  The  conclusion  of  that 
paper  undoubtedly  makes  it  in  substance  a  declinature.  It  is  not  a  lawful  decli- 
nature according  to  the  books.  The  nature  of  a  protest  when  made  against 
the  decision  of  the  highest  court,  is  a  strong  expression  of  non-agreement  in 
judgement  with  the  court,  but  does  not  warrant  a  disobedience  of  the  sentence. 
Such  is  the  principle  and  practice  of  the  Associate  Church. 

Question  by  Mr.  Fairchild,  of  counsel  for  Complainants — Do  other  Pres- 
byterian denominations  allow  a  protest  against  the  decision  of  the  highest 
court  ? 

This  question  objected  to  by  Mr.  Allen,  of  counsel  for  Defendants,  as  irrel- 
evant and  immaterial.  The  question  is  waived  for  the  present.  It  belongs  to 
the  Supreme  Court,  and  it  is  their  right  and  power  to  require  present  submis- 
sion to  their  decisions. 

Question  by  Mr.  Fairchild,  of  counsel  for  Complainants — What  is  the  effect  of 
the  belief  of  an  individual,  that  the  decision  of  the  court  against  him  is  unjust 
upon  the  question,  whether  he  shall  obey  that  decision  ? 

Answer  by  the  witness — As  to  his  obedience  to  the  decision,  I  do  not  know 
of  any  difference  it  should  make  provided  the  decision  is  not  such,  as  to  be  an 
imposition  upon  his  conscience. 

Question  by  Mr.  Fairchild — If  he  cannot  conscientiously  submit  to  the  de- 
cision, can  he,  or  can  he  not  refuse  to  submit,  and  retain  his  fellowship  and 
standing  in  the  church.  The  question  is  objected  to  by  Mr.  Allen,  of  counsel 
for  Defendants,  as  leading  and  substantially  the  same  question  as  already  put. 

Objection  over-ruled  and  evidence  received.  Answer — He  certainly  cannot 
remain  in  the  church,  without  submitting  to  the  authority  of  its  courts.  I  would 
quote  as  authoriy  for  this,  the  6th  question  of  the  formula  of  the  ordination 
vows,  in  which  such  submission  is  expressly  engaged  to,  as  indispensable  to 
ordination  to  office  in  the  church.  Synod  referred  Dr.  Bullions  back  to  the 
Presbytery  of  Cambridge  for  dealing.  This  the  Synod  had  lawful  right  to  do. 
The  resolution  of  Synod  referring  Dr.  Bullions  to  the  Presbytery  of  Cam- 
bridge, will  be  found  on  page  31  of  Exhibit  B.  According  to  the  rules  of 
government  of  the  Associate  Church,  Synod  had  a  right  to  make  this  refer- 
ence. See  Book  of  discipline,  part  1st,  article  5th.  Dr.  Bullions,  acceding  to 
the  rules  of  government  and  discipline,  of  the  Associate  Church,  had  no  right 
to  go  to  any  other  Presbytery,  than  the  Cambridge  Presbytery,  to  get  restored. 
I  would  refer  for  authority  to  the  form  of  process  in  Perdivan,  chapter  1st,  par- 
agraph 6th.  It  is  also  necessarily  implied  in  the  duties  and  powers  ascribed 
to  Presbyteries,  in  the  4th  article  of  part  1st,  of  the  Book  of  discipline. 

If  in  such  case  any  other  Presbytery  should  assume  to  act,  such  act  vvould 
not  only  be  censurable,  but  in  itself  mill  and  void.  See  Stewart  of  Perdivan, 
book  4th,  title  5th  and  section  6th. 

Question  by  Mr.  Fairchild,  of  counsel  for  Complainants — Was  there  an  ap- 
pointment made  by  Synod  as  stated  on  page  31  of  Exhibit  B,  of  two  ministers 
to  act  as  commissioners  from  Synod  in  the  Congregation  of  Cambridge  ? 

Mr.  Allen  objects  to  the  question  as  improper,  because  parole  evidence  of  this 
fact  is  improper.  Objection  over-ruled,  and  evidence  received  by  the  examin- 
er. 


84 

The  witness  states,  that  Synod  did  make  the  appointment  as  is  there  stated. 

Question  by  Mr.  Faircliild^Had  Synod  llie  riyht  so  to  do  according  to  the 
govcrmncnt,  discipline  and  ])raclice  of  the  Associate  Churcli  ? 

The  question  is  objected  to,  because  there  is  no  foundation  for  it  in  the  bill. 
Objection  over-ruled,  and  evidence  received  by  the  examiner. 

Synod  had  the  right  to  make  this  appointment  according  to  the  government, 
discipline  and  practice  of  the  Associate  Church.  Sec  Perdivan,  book  1st,  ti- 
tle 13th  ;  see  also,  "  Overtures  concerning  discipline"  page  617.  This  last 
authority  is  substantially  the  same  as  that  in  Perdivan.  The  Trustees  or  Con- 
gregation of  an  Associate  Church  have  no  right  to  refuse  a  minister  in  good 
standing  sent  them  as  a  supply  for  a  short  season  by  order  of  Presbytery  or 
Synod.  I  Avould  refer  for  authority  to  the  Book  of  Discipline,  part  1st,  article 
4tli,  and  about  the  middle  clause.  See  page  11  of  Exhibit  A,  on  part  of  De- 
fendants. The  same  is  also  necessarily  implied  in  article  f5th  of  the  Book  of 
Discipline,  Avhich  treats  of  the  duty  of  Synod.  I  was  present  at  a  meeting  of 
the  Presbytery  of  Cambridge  held  at  the  church  of  the  Associate  Congrega- 
tion in  Salem  some  time  in  the  month  of  June,  in  the  year  1838. 

Question  by  Mr.  Fairchild — Do  you  know  whether,  and  if  so,  were  Com- 
missioners present  at  this  meeting  on  the  part  of  the  Congregation  of  Cam- 
bridge ? 

Question  objected  to  by  Mr.  Allen,  as  being  by  parole.  Objection  over-ruled 
and  evidence  received. 

There  were  some  persons  there  in  that  character  ;  John  Kobertson  was  one 
of  them,  and  I  think  James  Lourie  was  an  other.  Presbytery  gave  an  answer 
to  a  question  asked  by  these  Commissioners.  This  answer  was  a  deed  of 
Presbytery.  Mr.  Fairchild,  of  counsel  for  Complainants,  offers  in  evidence  a 
paper  purporting  to  be  an  extract  from  the  minutes  of  Presbytery,  and  which 
the  witness  states  is  a  true  copy  of  the  minutes,  and  which  is  marked  as  Ex- 
hibit K,  on  the  part  of  the  Complainants.  The  witness  further  states,  that  he 
has  examined  the  extract  produced,  and  compared  the  same  with  the  minutes 
of  the  Presbytery  of  Cambridge  in  the  Book  of  Records  kept  by  the  Clerk  of 
that  Presbytery,  and  the  paper  produced  is  a  true  extract  from  those  minutes. 

According  to  the  standard  of  the  Church,  Presbytery  had  a  right  to  pass  the 
deed  contained  in  Exhibit  K.  See  Book  of  Discipline,  part  1st,  article  4th, 
near  the  top  of  page  11. 

Question  by  Mr.  Fairchild — Did  or  did  not  Sjmod  refuse  to  hear  a  memorial 
from  persons  adhering  to  Dr.  Bullions,  on  the  ground  that  those  adhering  to 
him,  and  attending  upon  his  ministry,  were  not  in  fellowship  with  the  Associate 
Church  ? 

The  question  is  objected  to  by  Mr.  Allen,  on  the  ground  that  the  minutes  of 
the  Synod  ought  to  be  produced,  and  because  it  is  matter  which  has  occurred 
since  the  filing  of  the  bill  in  this  cause.  The  objection  is  over-ruled  by  the 
Examiner,  and  the  evidence  received. 

The  witness  states,  that  on  page  13  of  Exhibit  A,  on  part  of  Complainants, 
now  shewn  to  him,  will  be  found  this  decision  of  Synod.  It  was  then  de- 
cided that  a  petition  from  them  was  inadmissible,  because  they  were  in  a  dis- 
orderly state  ;  the  reason  is  not  assigned  on  page  13. 

Question  by  Mr.  Fairchild — Did  you  or  not  act  as  moderator  of  the  session 
of  the  Associate  Congregation  of  Cambridge  at  the  time  those  who  claimed 
to  be  the  Trustees  of  said  Congregation,  were  on  their  trial  before  that  Ses- 
sion ? 

This  question  was  objected  to  by  Mr.  Allen,  because  it  is  immaterial  and 
irrelevant,  and  because  it  is  matter  which  has  occurred  since  the  commence- 


85 

ment  of  this  suit,  and  that  the  distinct  matter  has  been  decidedly  dicsposed  of 
by  the  decision  of  tlic  Chancellor.  The  objection  is  over-ruled  by  the  Exam- 
iner, and  the  evidence  received. 

Mr.  Fairchild,  of  counsel  for  Complainant,  produces  a  paper  which  is  mark- 
ed as  Exhibit  L,  on  part  of  Complainants,  and  w^hichthe  witness  states  he  has 
compared  with  the  original  minutes  of  the  session  of  Cambridge  as  contained 
on  the  record  book  of  that  session,  and  such  paper  marked  as  Exhibit  L,  con- 
tains a  true  and  faithful  extract  from  such  minutes. 

There  is  an  omission  in  the  record  book  however.  The  record  book  omits 
to  state  in  the  minutes  of  a  meeting  held  September  20,  1S39,  near  the  close 
of  the  proceedings  of  that  meeting,  that  those  who  had  been  cited  twice  to 
appear  before  session  should  now  be  cited,  a  third  time  with  certification  that 
if  they  did  not  appear  the  session  would  proceed  in  their  absence.  This  was 
in  fact  ordered  at  that  session,  and  should  have  been  placed  in  the  minutes. 

The  proceedings  mentioned  in  this  exhibit,  were  regular  and  legal  accord- 
ing to  the  standard  of  the  Associate  Church,  The  session  at  each  of  the 
meetings  mentioned  in  Exhibit  L,  was  rightly  constituted,  and  had  jurisdic- 
tion over  each  of  the  cases  tried. 

At  the  meeting  of  Presbytery  held  at  Argyle  in  October,  1837,  I  acted  until 
the  stated  clerk  arrived  as  clerk  pro  tern,  and  recorded  Dr.  Bullions'  expression 
referred  to  in  the  fore  part  of  this  deposition  on  the  minutes  of  Presbytery  as 
an  "  insinuation"  because  he  did  not  give  the  statement  as  from  his  own  direct 
knowledge.  According  to  the  principles  of  the  Associate  Church  the  decease 
of  a  wife  or  husband  does  not  dissolve  the  relation  between  the  survivors. — 
A  decision  of  a  church  court  would  be  an  imposition  on  the  conscience  if  it 
would  require  a  man  to  do  any  thing  contrary  to  the  word  of  God,  but  a  de- 
cision requiring  him  to  suffer  more  than  he  justly  might,  cannot,  in  all  cases, 
be  so  called.  This  is  made  as  an  explanation  of  what  is  stated  in  a  previous 
part  of  my  deposition.  The  Associate  Synod  of  North  America  is  the  supreme 
judicatory  in  our  church.     There  is  no  other  Synod  in  our  Church, 

D.  GORDON, 

Sworn,  examined  and  subscribed  ^ 
before  me  this  21st  dayofOc-  > 
tober,  in  the  year  1841,  ) 

JAMES  GIBSON,  Examiner  in  Chancery. 


IN    CHANCERY: 
Before  the  Chancellor. 

William  Stevenson,  et  al,    ) 

vs.  > 

Alexander  Bullions,  et  al.    ) 


David  Gordon,  a  witness,  produced  on  the  part  of  Complainants  in  this  cause 
and  examined  by  Mr.  Fairchild,  of  counsel  for  said  Complainants,  and  now 
cross-examined  by  Mr.  Allen,  of  counsel  for  Defendants,  deposeth  as  follows, 
viz  : — 

The  first  proceedings  against  Dr.  Bullions,  in  Presbytery,  which  ended  in 
his  deposition  commenced  on  the  4th  of  October,  in  the  year  1839,  at  the  mee- 
ting of  Presbytery  held  at  Argyle.  When  that  meeting  opened.  Dr.  Bullions, 
wa?  a  regular  minister  in  good  standing  in  the  Associate  Church.    The  min- 


86 

isterial  members  present  at  the  meeting  of  Presbytery,  held  at  Argyle,  were 
Messrs.  Stalker,  Bullions,  A,  GorJon  and  1).  Gordon  and  Mr.  Miller.  There 
was  no  other  member  of  this  Presbytery,  than  Dr.  Bullions  of  the  same  name. 
I  was  clerk  pro  tern  of  the  meeting-,  till  the  arrival  of  the  stated  clerk.  The 
ruling  elders  present,  were  Messers.  Jolin  Robertson,  Benjamin  Skellie,  John 
Henry,  John  T.  Law  and  George  Boyd.  Mr.  Miller  was  moderator  at  the 
time  of  tjie  commencement  of  the  session  of  Presbytery.  The  business  in 
which  Mr.  Stalker  was  concerned,  was  the  first  ])usincss  of  Presbytery — That 
business,  was  to  investigate  a  complaint  made  by  Mr.  Stalker  previously,  a- 
gainst  INIessrs.  Miller  and  Anderson.  Dr.  Bullions  did  request  to  be  excused 
from  acting  on  that  business.  His  request  was  not  granted.  Dr.  Bullions  as 
is  truly  stated  on  the  minute  book,  from  considerations  of  propriety  requested, 
leave  to  decline  sitting  on  this  case.     Not  granted. 

Question  by  Mr.  Allen — Was  Mr.  A.  Gordon  chosen  moderator  in  the  place  of 
Mr.  Miller,  on  the  trial  on  the  complaint  of  Mr.  Stalker,  against  Miller  and 
Anderson.  Objected  to  by  Mr.  Fairchild,  on  the  ground  that  it  is  immaterial 
and  irrelevant  and  not  written  in  the  issue,  as  is  also  all  the  evidence  which 
has  or  may  be  given  touching  the  trial  of  Messrs.  Miller  and  Anderson,  Avhich 
is  also  objected  to.  Objection  over-ruled  and  evidence  received  by  the  Exam- 
iner. 

The  witness  answers,  that  Mr.  A.  Gordon  was  chosen  moderator  in  the 
place  of  Mr.  Miller,  for  the  purposes  of  this  trial.  The  request  of  Dr.  Bullions 
to  be  excused  was  unanimously  denied,  for  I  do  not  recollect  any  dissenting 
voice.  The  question  and  answer  is  objected  to,  because  the  minutes  are  proper 
evidence  to  prove  the  fact.  Objection  over-ruled.  Mr.  Fairchild,  also  ob- 
jects that  it  is  within  the  general  objection  before  made.  This  objection  also 
over-ruled  and  the  evidence  is  received  by  the  Examiner.  Members  of  a 
court  on  trial  are  not  entitled  to  take  a  part  in  the  proceedings  where  they  are 
parties. 

In  the  case  of  Mr.  Stalker,  he  could  not  be  a  judge,  on  the  case  against 
Messrs.  Miller  and  Anderson,  because  he  was  the  accuser. 

Mr.  Miller  objected  to  Dr.  Bullions  sitting  on  the  case  of  Stalker*s  com- 
plaint, on  the  ground  that  he  was  involved  as  being  at  the  foundation  of  it. 
I  believe  there  was  a  decision  of  Presbytery  on  that  objection.  The  decision 
was  that  Mr.  Miller's  objection  was  not  supported  by  proof.  Against  which 
decision  Mr.  Miller  protested  and  appealed  to  Synod.  This  being  a  negative 
decision  did  not  stay  the  proceedings  of  the  trial.  The  protest  being  received, 
did  not  stay  the  proceeding  nor  did  the  appeal  to  Synod.  The  trial  was  pro- 
ceeded with.  The  minutes  of  the  proceedings  of  the  fourth  day  of  October, 
give  a  true  history  of  the  proceedings  of  Presbytery  on  that  day.  There  was 
;no  ground  of  censure  against  Dr.  Bullions  which  arose  on  this  day.  What 
iook  place  against  him  arose  on  the  fifth  day  of  October.  On  that  day,  at  the 
opening  of  the  meeting,  Mr.  Anderson  was  absent,  as  also  John  Robertson. 
The  occasion  Avhich  led  to  the  remarks  of  Dr.  Bullions,  arose  at  the  very  open- 
ino-  of  the  meeting,  or  immediately  after  its  commencement.  Dr.  Bullions 
proposed  that  the  business  about  to  be  taken  up,  should  be  postponed  till  a 
fuller  meeting.  Upon  that  proposal  he  went  on  to  make  that  assertion  relative 
to  members  that  were  present  that  were  not  fit  to  sit  in  court.  At  the  time 
these  proceedings  were  recorded,  I  was  clerk,  and  took  down  the  words  of 
Dr.  Bullions.  I  have  a  distant  recollection  of  the  words  used  by  Dr.  Bullions. 
They  are  recorded  on  the  book  of  minutes.  The  word  "  insinuated"  is  a 
word  of  mine,  as  also  "  member  or  members."  He  used  the  expressions  re- 
peatedly, with  a  little  variation.     The  words  he  used  were — "  there  Avere 


87 

some  members  present  unfit  to  sit  in  any  court."  He  also  said  that — "if  t€* 
ports  were  true,  there  were  some  members  not  fit  to  sit  in  tJiat  court."  This 
was  in  connexion  with  the  remarks  before  specified.  He  varied  this  in  sever- 
al different  ways.  One  minute  afterwards  lie  stated  that  he  did  not  say  so, 
but  only  stated  what  was  reported,  and  if  that  was  censurable.  Presbytery 
might  censure  him  till  they  were  tired.  This  was  as  soon  as  the  minute  was 
read  in  his  hearing,  that  he  made  this  statement. 

Question  by  Mr.  Allen.- — Did  Dr.  Bullions  say  that  if  these  reports  were 
true,  they  might  censure  him  till  they  were  tired,  or  did  he  say  that  if  they 
imputed  to  him  the  words  charged,  he  would  never  acknowledge  them,  and 
they  might  censure  him  till  they  were  tired  ?  Mr.  Fairchild  objects  to  the 
question,  because  the  minutes  are  the  only  proper  evidence  of  what  Dr.  Bul- 
lions said.     Objection  over-ruled  and  the  evidence  received  by  the  examiner. 

Witness  answers  that  he  remembers  distinctly  Avhat  he  has  stated,  but  he 
does  not  remember  that  Dr.  Bullions  said  so.  Dr.  Bullions  having  in  his  re- 
marks, insinuated  that  some  member  or  members  present  were  unfit  to  sit  in 
any  court,  it  Avas  on  motion  resolved,  that  he  be  required  to  give  the  names. 
The  question  arising  respecting  the  minutes,  the  moderator  decided  that  it 
was  out  of  order ;  an  appeal  was  taken  and  sustained  ;  the  minute  was  theii 
filled  up  as  follows,  viz  : 

Dr.  Bullions  refused  to  give  names  by  denying  his  former  words,  and  in  his 
remarks  said  "  Presbytery  might  censure  him  till  they  were  tired." 

Question  by  Mr.  Allen. — In  what  connexion  were  the  words  used  by  Dr. 
Bullions  that  "  Presbytery  might  censure  him  till  they  were  tired."  The 
question  objected  to  by  Mr.  Fairchild,  because  the  minutes  are  the  best  evi- 
dence, and  they  have  no  right  to  give  evidence  of  any  thing  not  contained  in 
them.     Objection  over-ruled  and  the  evidence  received  by  the  examiner. 

Dr.  Bullions  denied  that  he  had  said  so  concering  members — that  he  had. 
only  stated  what  was  reported,  and  if  that  was  censurable  they  might  censurie 
him  till  they  were  tired.  It  is  not  censurable  of  itself  for  a  member  of  a 
court  to  state  in  open  court  that  there  are  unfavorable  reports  concerning  other 
members  provided  he  will  concur  as  I  said  before,  in  investigating  them.  The 
slander  and  contempt  consisted  chiefly  in  saying  that  members  present  were 
unfit  to  sit  in  any  court. 

Same  objection  is  made  by  Mr.  Fairchild — contempt  was  also  in  refusing  to 
give  the  names  when  called  for  by  the  Presbytery.  He  was  silenced  for  bois- 
terous and  noisy  conduct,  which  prevented  others  from  speaking  and  for  dis- 
obeying orders  when  called  to  order. 

Mr- Fairchild  objects  to  all  evidence  of  any  matters  occurring  in  Presby- 
tery, excepting  the  minutes  of  Presbytery ;  that  the  minutes  are  the  best  evi- 
dence, and  that  they  have  no  right  to  prove  any  thing  not  contained  in  them. 
I  do  not  know  that  I  could  be  more  specific  than  I  have  been.  The  minutes 
giving  the  history  of  the  matter  are  correct  and  betterthan  my  memory.  The 
minutes  state  that  "  Dr.  Bullions,  for  disobedience  to  the  moderator,  AVas  de- 
prived of  the  privilege  of  debate  for  this  sitting.  It  was  on  motion  resolved, 
that  Dr.  Bullions  be  censured  for  contempt  of  court  in  the  above  slanderous  in- 
sinuations and  expressions,  on  motion  resolved,  that  the  censure  due  to  Dr. 
Bullions  be  rebuke."  These  motions  were  made  and  passed  while  Dr.  Bui- 
lions  was  under  imposition  of  silence. 

The  minutes  state  that  "  Dr.  Bullions  entered  his  protest  against  the  min- 
utes, recording  his  expression,  and  appealed.  Protest  not  admitted.  Dr.  Bul- 
lions protested  against  not  admitting  his  protest — which  protest  was  admitted. 
Resolvedy  that  as  Mr.^Skellie  disagreed  with  the  ministers,  stating  Dr.  Bullions 


exceptionable  expression,  he  be  required  to  give  in  his  statement  of  that  ex- 
pression in  writing.  Mr.  Slvcllie,  gave  in  the  following  statement,  viz: — That 
Dr.  Bullions  did  not  sa}-  that  the  members  were  not  lit  tt)  sit  in  any  court,  but 
some  were  not  lit  to  sit  in  this  court. — (Signed)  Jienjamin  Skellie."  The  tes- 
timony la^t  above  taken,  commencing  with  the  words  '^Resolved,  that  as  Mr, 
SfccHie^^  is  objected  to  as  irrelevant,  immaterial  and  not  wilhiu  the  issuo,  by  Mr. 
Fairchild  of  counsel  for  Complainants,  but  is  received  by  the  Examiner. 

Question  by  Mr.  Allen — How  inany  ministerial  members  of  Presbytery,  were 
present  at  the  trial  of  Messrs.  Miller  and  Anderson  on  the  complaint  of  Mr. 
Stalker,  who  were  not  in  some  way  implicated  or  interested  in  the  matter? 

Answer — I  do  not  know  of  any  one  interested  or  implicated  in  the  matter 
beside  Mr.  Stalker,  the  accuser,  and  Messrs.  Anderson  and  Miller,  the  accused. 
I  do  not  recollect  that  Dr.  Bullions  stated  that  he  was  so  interested  that  he 
could  not  eit  as  judge  on  the  case.  I  do  not  remember  precise  reason  he  gave 
only  the  general  reason  on  the  minutes.  I  know  of  no  interest  that  I  had  in 
the  matter  on  trial  directly  or  indirectly.  The  minutes  state,  that  it  was  mo- 
ved to  take  up  Mr.  Stalker's  complaint  against  Messrs.  Miller  and  Anderson, 
and  Presbytery  did  commence  the  same.  At  this  stage  papers  were  read.  Mr. 
Anderson  presented  a  paper  objecting  to  Dr.  Bullions  sitting  which  was  recor- 
ded. I  have  no  recollection  of  this  paper  except  from  the  minutes  which  arc 
now  before  me. 

At  a  meeting  of  Presbytery  held  on  the  7th  day  of  February,  1838,  the 
minutes  of  Presbytery  of  the  5th  of  October,  1837,  were  filled  up  as  follows, 
viz : — 

"  As  Presbytery  were  about  proceeding  to  pass  the  sentence  of  suspension. 
Dr.  Bullions  arose  and  proposed  to  give  what  he  said  in  the  morning  or  the 
substance  of  it,  instead  of  what  was  recorded  in  the  minutes  as  his  expression, 
and  in  substance  said,  that  what  he  said  in  the  morning  was  '  that  if  reports 
were  true  for  which  he  would  refer  Presbytery  to  the  Rev.  George  Mairs  and 
the  Rev.  Peter  Gordon,  there  were  four  members  of  this  Presbytery  not  fit  to 
sit  in  this  court,' — stating  moreover,  that  these  four  were  Messrs.  A.  Gordon, 
D.  Gordon,  Miller  and  Anderson,  and  that  what  was  charged  against  them, 
was  error  in  doctrine  and  immorality  in  practice.'  I  do  not  recollect  on  Avhose 
motion  that  minutes  was  filled  up.  I  recollect  the  facts  to  be  as  stated  in  the 
minutes  so  filled  up.  The  minutes  of  the  5th  of  October,  1837,  further  state 
as  follows,  viz: — "  Proceeded  to  inflict  the  censure  voted  on  Dr.  Bullions.  He 
refused  to  submit,  and  protested  and  appealed  to  Synod — protest  not  admitted. 
Dr.  Bullions  protested  against  the  rejection  of  his  protest — protest  admitted. 
It  was  then  on  motion  resolved,  that  Dr.  Bullions  be  suspended  from  the  exer- 
cise of  his  ministry  and  communion  of  the  church  till  he  give  evidence  of  re- 
pentance. Voted  six  to  two.  Br.  Bullions  protested  against  this  decision  and 
appealed.  Protest  not  admitted.  He  protested  against  the  rejection  of  his 
protest,  which  protest  was  admitted. 

The  contumacy  for  which  Dr.  Bullions  was  suspended,  consisted  in  his  ob- 
stinate refusal,  as  I  stated  before,  to  retract  or  concur  Avith  the  Presbytery  in 
investio-atino-  the  matter  which  he  reported  to  be  against  members,  or  to  submit 
to  a  rebuke  for  his  expressions.  At  this  time  the  Doctor  had  refused  to  concur 
with  the  Presbytery  in  investigating  the  truth  of  such  reports,  by  refusing  to 
endeavor  to  find  evidence  upon  the  truth  of  the  matter.  Dr.  Bullions  was  call- 
ed upon  to  furnish  evidence  of  the  reports  that  he  gave. 

Question  by  Mr.  Allen— Was  it  out  of  the  power  of  that  court,  after  being 
furnished  with  the  names  of  the  witnesses,  to  proceed  in  the  investigation  of 
those  reports  without  the  concurrence  of  Dr.  Bullions.     The  question  is  object- 


89 

ed  to  by  Mr.  Fairchild,  that  it  does  not  appear  that  Dr.  Bullions  furnished  the 
names  of  witnesses  and  also  on  the  ground  that  the  question  is  immaterial  and 
irrelevant.  The  objection  is  over-ruled  by  the  Examiner  and  the  evidence  re- 
ceived. 

I  do  not  say,  nor  have  I  said  as  to  his  furnishing  the  names  of  witnesses,  but 
order  required  that  when  he  asserted  the  existence  of  the  reports  he  should 
have  given  the  authority  upon  which  he  made  that  statement  and  concurred 
with  the  Presbytery  in  using  all  lawful  means  in  his  power  to  have  the  truth 
of  these  reports  investigated,  which  he  did  not  and  would  not.  This  is  what 
I  mean  by  the  contumacy  I  spoke  of.  Mr,  Alien  objects  to  this  answer,  be- 
cause it  is  not  responsive  to  the  question  put.  The  counsel  of  the  Complain- 
ants objects  to  the  objection  of  Mr.  Allen,  being  taken  down  by  the  Examiner, 
on  the  ground  that  it  should  have  been  made  before  the  answer  was  taken 
down. 

Question  by  Mr.  Allen — Was  it  out  of  the  power  of  that  court  to  proceed  in 
the  investigation  of  the  reports  spoken  of  or  charged  by  Dr.  Bullions  without 
his  concurrence?  Mr.  Fairchild  objects  to  the  question  as  immaterial  and  ir- 
relevant and  not  within  the  issue.  Objection  over-ruled  by  the  Examiner,  and 
the  evidence  received. 

Answer — It  was  out  of  their  power  unless  he  concurred  in  some  measure — 
I  mean  by  some  measure,  unless  he  in  some  way  intimated  some  sources  of  in- 
formation, such  as  he  did  make  by  naming  letters  said  to  be  in  the  posession 
of  George  Mairs  and  Peter  Gordon,  But  it  was  not  out  of  their  power,  al- 
though, he  should  not  concur  as  duty  required  him,  which  he  refused  to  do. 
This  vote  of  suspension  was  a  censure  and  was  equal  to  the  lesser  sentence  of 
excommunication,  in  this,  that  it  suspended  him  from  the  fellowship  of  the 
Church,  This  suspension  from  the  fellowship  of  the  Church  was  the  same 
thing  as  the  lesser  sentence  of  excommunication.  The  Presbytery  were  rio-ht 
in  rejecting  the  protest  and  appeal  of  Dr.  Bullions  against  that  rebuke,  passed 
upon  him  by  vote  of  Presbytery. 

Mr.  Fairchild  of  counsel  for  Complainants,  objects  to  the  question  and  the  evi- 
dence last  taken,  which  was  responsive  to  that  question  on  the  ground  that  it 
has  no  where  appeared  that  Presbytery  did  reject  the  appeal.  A  protest  un- 
accompanied by  an  appeal  cannot  be  admitted.  If  the  protest  of  Dr.  Bullions 
against  the  sentence  of  rebuke  had  been  admitted,  would  have  stayed  all  pro- 
ceedings. A  protest  admitted  sists  all  proceedings.  See  Book  of  discipline 
part  3rd,  article  12th;  page  60th.  And  if  the  court  reject  the  protest  it  may 
proceed  to  final  sentence  and  judgment.  As  authority  for  this  I  would  cite 
near  the  bottom  of  page  60,  of  the  Book  of  discipline.  The  Presbytery  had 
the  right  in  the  case  of  Dr.  Bullions,  to  proceed  in  the  business;  but  it 
would  not  have  been  in  order  to  inflict  tho  sentence  of  rebuke  after  the  protest 
and  appeal  of  Dr.  Bullions,  because  it  had  been  voted  for  terminations  of  the 
difficulty,  and  could  not  have  been  so,  because  the  Doctor  would  not  submit 
presently  to  the  rebuke.  A  party  on  trial  has  the  right  to  protest  and  appeal 
against  the  sentence  of  rebuke.  The  admitting  of  such  a  protest  would  stay 
the  rebuke  till  the  decision  of  Synod.  If  the  court  reject  the  protest  and  ap- 
peal they  could  proceed  and  inflict  a  higher  censure,  if  the  party  refuse  to  sub- 
mit to  the  lower  censure.  The  efl^ect  of  protesting  against  the  rejection  of  a  pro* 
test  carriesthecauseto  the  higher  judicatory,  the  Synod  in  this  case  ;  but  the  sen- 
tence of  the  lower  court  stands  till  reversed.  A  party  can  not  consistently  sub- 
mit to  any  judgment  of  the  lower  court,,  where  he  protests  at  the  same  time 
against  the  sentence.  It  is  the  constitutional  right  of  any  party  on  trial  to  nrotest 
and  appeal  frim  any  decision  by  which  he  may  conceive  himself  aggrieved, 
12 


90 

Question  by  Mr.  Allen — Suppose  a  party  who  has  protested  and  appealed 
from  the  infliction,  a  sentence  of  rcbulic,  or  imposition  of  such  sentence  and 
wiiose  protest  has  been  rejected  and  who  1ms  protested  against  the  rejection  of 
that  protest  submits  to  the  rebuke,  and  it  is  inllicted,  and  the  Synod  afterwards 
reverses  the  decision  of  the  court  below,  how  is  the  rebuke  to  be  got  back 
which  they  previously  inflicted  ? 

Answer — I  would  say  that  the  case  supposed  by  the  question  cannot  occur. 

The  court  proceeded  in  the  infliction  of  the  sentence  of  suspension  from  the 
ministry,  and  communion  of  the  church,  because  Dr.  Bullions  would  not 
submit  to  the  sentence  of  rebuke.  I  never  knew  a  court  proceed  to  inflict  a 
sentence  of  rebuke  when  a  protest  was  interposed  against  it,  whether  a  first  or 
second  protest. 

I  know  it  is  the  principle  and  practice  of  the  Associate  Church  for  a  Presby- 
bytery  to  inflict  sentence  adjudged  upon  a  party  notwithstanding  a  second  pro- 
test after  the  rejection  of  the  first  protest,  but  I  can  not  now  from  recollection 
give  an  instance. 

Question  by  Mr.  Allen — Did  j-ou  ever  know  the  Presbytery  of  Cambridge 
after  a  second  protest  and  appeal,  to  inflict  sentence  of  suspension  or  any  other 
censure,  upon  any  other  case  than  the  case  of  Dr.  Bullions  ?  The  question  is 
objected  to  by  Mr.  Fairchild,  of  counsel  for  Complainants,  as  irrelevant  and 
immaterial,  and  not  within  the  issue,  and  that  the  minutes  of  Presbytery  are 
the  best  evidence.     The  objection  is  over-ruled  and  the  evidence  received. 

Answer — I  never  knew  a  case  which  would  give  the  apportunity  except  the 
case  of  Dr.  Bullions.  I  do  not  of  my  own  personal  knowledge,  know  of  any 
such  case  in  other  Presbyteries,  because,  I  have  never  been  in  any  other  Pres- 
bytery, when  any  such  business  was  before  them.  I  do  not  mean  to  say  that 
such  a  case  could  be  found  in  the  books,  but  I  think  they  can  for  this  principle, 
I  would  quote  the  Book  of  discipline  part  3rd,  article  12th,  at  the  bottom  of 
page  60th.  I  know  such  to  be  the  sense  with  which  this  is  taken  in  the  Asso- 
ciate Church.  I  know  it  from  my  personal  knowledge.  It  is  my  understan- 
ding for  one.  The  minutes  of  Synod  in  the  case  of  Dr.  Bullions,  show  that 
such  is  the  understanding  of  Synod,  in  the  fact  that  Synod  sustained  the  procee- 
dings of  the  Cambridge  Presbytery. 

Question  by  Mr.  Allen— Do  you  know  that  there  is  a  difference  of  opinion 
on  this  subject  in  the  church? 

There  may  be  individuals  of  a  different  opinion,  although,  I  could  not  at 
present  name  any.  I  was  present  at  the  meeting  of  Presbytery,  which  con- 
tinued till  the  6th  of  October,  1837.  The  ministerial  members  present  were 
Messrs.  Stalker,  A.  Gordon  and  D.  Gordon  and  Miller  ;  and  Mr.  Anderson 
came  in  during  ihe  meeting.  On  the  morning  of  that  day  Dr.  Bullions  han- 
ded in  a  written  paper  signed  by  him.  This  last  answer  objected  to  by  Mr. 
Fairchild. 

Question  by  Mr.  Allen — What  was  that  paper  ? 

The  question  is  objected  to,  because  the  evidence  is  improper,  irrelevant  ; 
also  immaterial  and  not  within  the  issue.  Objection  over-ruled,  and  the  evi- 
dence received. 

Mr.  Fairchild  requires  the  production  of  the  paper  before  evidence  is  given 
of  it.  The  following  is  a  copy  of  this  paper  as  taken  by  the  witness  from  a 
narrative  of  the  proceedings  of  the  Associate  Presbytery  of  Cambridge,  which 
issued  in  the  deposition  of  the  Rev.  D.  Stalker,  and  of  the  Eev.  A.  Bullions, 
D.  D.,  and  published  by  A.  Anderson,  J.  P.  Miller  and  D.  Gordon,  the  witness 
who  were  a  Committee  of  Presbytery  for  that  purpose. 

"  The  subscriber  being  prevented  yesterday  from  recording  in  the  minutes 


91 

of  the  Presbytery  his  views  of  the  language  imputed  to  him  and  voted  cen- 
surable, begs  leave  from  a  sense  of  duty  to  himself,  to  religion,  to  this  court 
and  to  society,  solemnly  to  declare  in  the  presence  of  the  Searcher  of  all  hearts, 
that  the  language  attributed  to  him  does  not  convey  the  meaning  he  intended, 
and  that  he  regards  it  as  improper — disclaims  it,  and  if  used  by  him,  expres- 
ses his  sincere  regret  for  having  uttered  it. 

Argyle,  October  6th,  1837.  ALEXANDER  BULLIONS." 

The  minutes  state,  that  "  representation  by  Dr.  Bullions  was  given  in  and 
referred  to  Messrs.  Miller  and  Henry  as  a  Committee  before  reading.  The 
Commxittee  reported  against  the  present  reading  of  it,  it  was  therefore  on  mo- 
tion laid  on  the  table."  I  can  not  say  that  the  paper  was  read  in  Presbytery 
at  that  meeting,  for  certainty  I  must  refer  to  the  minutes.  It  does  not  appear 
by  the  minutes  that  this  paper  was  read  at  that  meeting  of  the  Presbytery  in 
open  court.     It  does  appear  by  the  minutes  as  follows : — 

"  A  paper  given  in  by  Dr.  Bullions  having  been  verbally  reported  on  by  the 
Committee  to  whom  it  had  been  referred,  was  recommitted  in  order  that  a  re- 
port on  it  be  laid  before  the  next  meeting  of  Presbytery."  I  have  no  doubt 
but  I  voted  in  the  affirmative  on  the  resolution  to  censure  Dr.  Bullions  at  the 
meeting  of  Presbytery  of  the  5th  of  October,  1837.  Neither  have  I  any  doubt 
but  that  I  voted  in  the  affirmative  on  the  resolution  to  suspend  him  for  contu- 
macy till  he  gave  evidence  of  repentance.  I  have  no  doubt  also,  that  I  voted 
in  the  affirmative  on  the  resolutions  to  lay  Dr.  Bullion's  paper  on  the  table  and 
to  recommit  same. 

Question  by  Mr.  Allen — Suppose  a  party  should  protest  and  appeal  from  the 
infliction  of  a  sentence  of  suspension,  and  the  court  should  admit  it,  how  long 
would  it  stay  the  execution  of  the  judgment  provided  the  protest  and  appeal 
was  not  sustained  ? 

Answer — It  would  depend  on  the  manner  in  which  the  higher  court  might 
dispose  of  the  case,  or  direct  it  to  be  disposed  of.  If  the  higher  court  should 
dispose  of  it  themselves,  of  course  they  would  terminate  it,  the  meeting  when 
they  did  so  dispose  of  it,  but  if  they  referred  it  back  to  the  inferior  court,  from 
which  it  came,  for  execution,  the  culprit  could  still  protest  again  and  place  it 
where  it  was. 

Question  by  Mr.  Allen — Can  a  party,  after  an  appeal,  to  a  higher  court  from 
a  definitive  sentence  of  a  Presbytery,  has  not  been  sustained,  and  he  remitted 
to  the  Presbytery  to  receive  the  sentence  appealed  from,  again  protest  and  ap- 
peal, and  stay  the  execution  of  the  sentence? 
Answer — He  can  not. 

Question  by  Mr.  Allen — How  do  you  get  along  with  the  former  answer  in 
which  you  stated,  that  if  a  party  was  remitted  back  by  Synod  to  Presbytery 
for  execution  of  the  sentence  he  could  again  protest  and  appeal,  and  place  it 
where  it  was  before  ? 

Answer — I  had  understood  that  question  to  have  proceeded  upon  the  sup- 
position, that  a  protest  was  always  to  stay  proceedings  in  the  court  below,  and 
of  course  a  culprit  might  always  protest  and  always  stay  proceedings. 

Question  by  Mr.  Allen — You  state,  that  Dr.  Bullions  had  repeatedly  appeal- 
ed against  the  infliction  of  punishment,  which  had  been  imposed  by  Synod. — 
This  question  waived. 

Question  by  Mr.  Allen — Was  the  effect  of  the  suspension  from  the  com- 
munion of  the  church,  as  in  this  case,  to  deprive  Dr.  Bullions  of  the  right  to 
preach  till  the  suspension  was  removed,  or  what  was  the  effect  of  the  suspen- 
sion of  Dr.  Bullions  in  this  case  ? 

Answer — It  was  according  to  order  depriving  him  of  the  right  to  preach  or 


92 

to  partake  in  scaljnjr  ordinancos,  or  to  exercise  any  ))art  of  llio ministerial  office 
till  that  suspension  was  removed. 

Question  by  Mr.  Allen — Was  that  the  case  notwithstanding  his  protest  and 
appeal  ? 

Answer — It  was. 

Question  by  Mr.  Allen — Can  you  cfive  any  instance  when  it  has  been  ad- 
judr^ed  either  in  this  country  or  in  Scotland  in  the  Associate  Church,  that  a 
minister  should  not  have  the  rinht  to  preach  under  his  protest,  and  appeal  not- 
wifhstandinnf  suspension  by  the  inferior  court  ? 

Answer — I  can  not  recollect  an  instance  neither  here  nor  in  Scotland,  be- 
cause I  do  not  remember  any  instance  of  a  minister  protesting  against  a  sus- 
pension. 

Question  by  Mr.  Allen — Is  a  minister  bound  to  submit  to  a  decision  of  a 
church  court  right  or  wrong  ? 

Answer — I  do  not  know^  of  any  rule  in  these  terms  to  submission  any  where 
in  church  or  state. 

Question  by  Mr.  Allen — Suppose  a  church  court  clearly  errs  in  the  inflic- 
tion of  a  sentence,  and  rejects  the  protest  of  the  party,  is  the  party  notwith- 
standing, bound  to  submit  to  and  obey  it?  The  question  is  objected  to  as  ir- 
relevant, immaterial  and  not  Avithin  the  issue.  Objection  over-ruled  and  evi- 
dence received. 

Answer — There  is  an  ambiguity  in  the  expression  "  clearly  err"  because  I 
do  not  know  to  whom  it  is  supposed  to  be  clear,  that  they  do  err,  because  that 
a  court  should  knowingly  and  wilfully  give  an  unrighteous  judgment  can  not 
be  supposed,  or  if  they  should  do  so,  such  decision  could  not  be  acknowledg- 
ed. I  should  consider  it  void  ;  but  it  is  not  every  error  in  the  judgment  of  a 
court,  that  may  be  observed  by  a  person  adjudged  that  will  warrant  disobedi- 
ence to  the  sentence. 

Question  by  Mr.  Allen — Suppose  that  the  party  judged  conscientiously  and 
sincerely  believes  that  the  sentence  imposed  is  wrong  and  imjust,  and  protests 
and  appeals,  which  protest  is  rejected  by  the  Presbytery,  is  he  bound  against 
his  conscience  to  submit  to  the  judgment  of  the  Presbytery  ? 

Answer — I  would  say  there  is  an  outward  submission  to  order  to  be  given 
for  the  present  while  he  has  full  liberty  of  conscience  to  retain  his  own  vieAV 
of  the  matter  to  be  tried  in  due  time  in  the  superior  court.  One  man's  liber- 
ty of  conscience  can  not  be  such  as  to  encroach  upon  the  liberty  of  the  con- 
sciences of  others,  or  contemn  lawful  authority.  See  confession  of  faith, 
chapter  20th,  section  4th.  See  same  on  page  121st  of  exhibit  G,  on  part  of 
Complainants. 

Question  by  Mr.  Allen — Is  the  wdiole  confession  of  faith  received  in  the  As- 
sociate Church. 

Answer — It  is  received  with  explanation  as  given  in  the  declaration  and  tes- 
timony of  said  Church.      Sec  Exhibit  E,  froTi  page  68  to  page  70. 

Question  by  Mr.  Allen — Will  you  explain  what  you  mean  by  the  phrase 
"one  man's  liberty  of  conscience  cannot  be  such  as  to  encroach  on  the  liber- 
ty of  the  consciences  of  others  ?" 

Answer — An  instance  is,  Papists  plead  conscience  for  destroying  the  lives 
of  such  as  they  judge  heretics,  while  they  can  be  allowed  no  such  liberty,  be- 
cause it  encroaches  upon  the  conscientious  rights  and  the  natural  rights  of 
others. 

Question  by  Mr.  Allen — Would  it  not  be  encroaching  on  a  ma«i's  conscience 
for  a  Presbytery  to  require  him  to  assume  and  believe  what  he  could  not  con- 
scientiously believe  ? 


93 

Answer — I  should  think  it  would,  but  it  can  not  be  called  an  encroachment 
for  a  Presbytery  to  require  a  man  to  submit  to  order  according  to  his  solemn 
engagements,  although  he  may  plead  conscience  as  his  excuse. 

Question  by  Mr.  Allen — Suppose  that  a  decided  majority  of  a  minister's  own 
congregation  conscientiously  believe  with  him,  that  the  sentence  of  Presbyte- 
ry is  unjust  and  the  protest  and  appeal  has  been  rejected  by  the  Presbytery,  are 
they  with  him  all  bound  to  submit  against  conscience  and  be  deprived  of  the 
services  of  their  minister? 

Answer — It  may  be  given  as  a  comprehensive  answer  to  questions  on  this 
point,  that  if  minister  or  people  cannot  conscientiously  submit  to  the  authority 
of  the  courts  of  the  church  who  are  over  them,  they  have  just  got  to  leave  the 
church,  because,  it  is  perfectly  absurd  that  any  shall  retain  their  privileges  in 
the  church  and  not  be  subject  to  its  authority. 

Question  by  Mr.  Allen — Did  not  the  Rev.  Mr.  Marshall  and  the  Rev.  Mr. 
Clarkson  when  they  considered  the  sentence  against  them  as  unjust,  declare 
themselves  to  be  the  Associate  Presbytery  of  Pennsylvania  and  appeal  to  the 
Associate  Synod  of  Scotland,  and  were  sustained  by  that  Synod?  The  ques- 
tion is  objected  to  on  the  ground  that  it  has  not  appeared  by  what  body  the  de- 
cision against  them  was  made,  nor  whether  that  body  was  subordinate  to  the 
Associate  Synod  of  Scotland.  The  objection  is  over-ruled  and  the  evidence 
received. 

Answer — I  am  not  aware  of  any  sentence  against  these  men  that  would  give 
their  case  the  remotest  resemblance  to  any  of  the  decisions  of  the  courts  upon 
which  I  have  been  examined.     The  answer  is  objected  to.  as  directly  evasive. 

Question  by  Mr.  Allen — You  stated  in  your  direct  examination  that  if  Pres- 
bytery had  not  the  right  to  proceed  on  the  rejection  of  a  protest  to  judgment 
against  the  offender,  he  would  always  have  it  in  his  power  to  nullify  any  pro- 
ceeding in  the  court  below.  Would  it  not  be  equally  in  the  power  of  a  Pres- 
bytery by  rejecting  the  protest,  to  deprive  a  minister  of  his  right  to  preach  and 
his  congregation  to  hear  if  they  felt  so  disposed  ? 

Answer — It  would  be  in  their  power  in  the  same  way  as  is  in  the  power  of 
any  court  to  practice  oppression  contrary  to  law,  if  they  should  feel  so  disposed, 
however  such  cannot  well  be  supposed  of  a  court  of  Christ's  house.  At  the  'pro 
re  nvtti  meeting  in  Cambridge,  in  November,  1837,  all  the  ministerial  mem- 
bers were  present  I  believe,  but  for  certainty  see  minutes.  At  a  pro  re  nntu 
meeting,  it  is  the  duty  of  the  moderator  to  give  notice  to  al]  the  ministers  of 
such  meeting.  The  ministerial  members  present,  were  Messrs.  White,  Stal- 
ker, Bullions,  A.  Gordon,  Anderson,  Goodvvillie,  Miller,  Pringle  and  D.  Gor- 
don. At  that  meeting,  as  appears  by  the  minutes,  the  following  resolution  was 
passed. 

"  Resolved,  That  Messrs.  T.  Goodwillie  and  Wm.  Pringle  have  not  a  seat 
in  Presbytery  on  this  meeting,  because  they  are  related  to  Dr.  Bullions  by  affi- 
nity, and  because  there  is  evidence  that  they  are  partial  in  his  cause  in  their  not 
attending  on  the  meetings  of  Presbytery,  except  when  his  cause  is  on  trial." 

The  minutes  further  state  which  the  witness  says  is  a  true  record  as  fellows  : 
"  It  was  moved  to  take  the  names  separately  in  the  resolution  which  was  ne- 
gatived." I  have  no  doubt  I  voted  in  the  negative  on  that  resolution,  though 
I  have  no  recollection.  The  effect  of  taking  the  two  names,  Messrs.  Goodwillie 
and  Pringle,  in  one  resolution,  was  to  deprive  both  of  a  vote  upon  it. 

Question  by  Mr.  Allen — Had  you  any  intimation  from  any  source,  or  had 
you  any  reason  to  believe,  previous  to  the  pro  re  natu  meeting  in  November. 
1837,  that  an  attempt  would  be  made,  or  a  resolution  passed  to  exclude  Messrs. 
Good  willie  and  Pringle  from  their  seats  in  Presbytery  at  that  meeting  ? 


94 

Answer — 1  ilo  not  remember  any  such  intimation,  and  as  to  reasons  for  be- 
lievinsT  that  such  resolution  would  be  offered,  I  myself  knowing  the  grounds 
on  which  they  were  actualy  excluded,  would  have  made  such  a  motion  if  it  had 
not  been  brought  forward  by  another. 

Question — Who  made  the  motion  to  exclude  them  ? 

Answer — I  do  not  remember. 

Question — Who  seconded  the  motion  ? 

Answer — I  do  not  remember. 

Question — Did  you  intimate  to  any  person,  previous  to,  or  at  the  meeting, 
that  you  would  introduce  a  resolution  to  exclude  them,  if  no  one  else  did  ? 

Answer — 1  do  not  remember,  nor  do  I  remember  any  conversation  I  had  nor 
any  that  I  heard  on  the  subject. 

Question — Which  way  did  you  vote  on  the  resolution  to  exclude  Messrs. 
Goodwillie  and  Pringle  from  their  seats  at  the  pro  re  rtatu  meeting  ;  objected 
to  as  immaterial.     I  have  no  doubt  I  voted  in  the  affirmative. 

Question — Was  that  resolution  carried  by  the  casting  vote  of  the  modera- 
tor? 

Answer — I  cannot  speak  from  personal  recollection  with  certainty,  but  refer 
to  the  minutes  which  is  a  true  record.  The  minutes  state  as  follows: — "The 
resolution  recurring  it  was  carried  in  the  affirmative  by  the  casting  vote  of  the 
moderator." 

Question — who  Avas  the  moderator  ? 

Answer — It  was  Mr.  Miller. 

Question — Was  there  a  motion  made  after  this  to  exclude  Mr.  White  from 
a  seat  in  the  Presbytery  at  that  meeting  ? 

Answer — There  was. 

Question — Was  that  motion  carried  by  the  casting  vote  of  the  moderator? 

Answer — It  was  carried,  but  I  do  not  know  by  what  vote  ;  I  refer  to  the 
minutes  for  certainty  on  that  point. 

Question — After  this  question  was  put  and  carried,  Avas  there  a  petition 
presented  and  read  from  the  Associate  Congregation  in  Cambridge  for  the  re- 
storation of  Dr.  Bullions  ? 

Answer — I  believe  there  was,  but  I  must  refer  to  the  minutes  for  certainty. 
The  minutes  state  as  follows  :  "  A  petition  from  the  Associate  Congregation 
of  Cambridge  for  the  restoration  of  Dr.  Bullions  was  given  in  and  read." — 
The  minutes  also  further  state  as  follows : — Dr.  Bullions  stated  that,  taking  it 
for  granted  that  the  language  attributed  to  him  by  Presbytery  Avas  his,  he  has 
the  same  vieAV  of  it  as  Presbytery  has  ;  that  the  language  was  utterly  wrong 
and  improper,  and  that  he  would  agree  to  submit  to  any  censure  Avhich  any 
court  would  judge  proper.  The  paper  laid  in  by  Dr.  Bullions  at  last  meeting 
of  Presbytery  and  the  report  of  the  committee  of  Presbytery  on  it,  Avere  call- 
ed for  and  read,  on  Avhich  the  folloAving  motions  were  made  and  carried. 

A  copy  of  those  resolutions  is  hereto  annexed  and  marked  as  Exbit  B,  on 
part  of  Defendants  Avhich  exhibit  contains  also  the  requisitions  Avhich  Avere 
made  by  Presbytery  of  Dr.  Bullions  and  of  his  ansAvers  thereto  Avhich  Avill  be 
found  on  pages  104  and  105,  and  the  ansAvers  to  all  but  the  fifth  are  on  page 
110,  and  the  ansAver  to  the  fif  h  requisition  is  on  page  106,  of  the  Record 
Book  of  Cambridge  Presbytery. 

Question — Did  the  Presbytery  at  the  pro  re  natu  meeting  restore  Dr.  Bul- 
lions ? 

Answer — They  did  not  restore  him  at  that  meeting. 

Question — At  the  meeting  on  the  6th  day  of  December,  in  the  year  1837, 
at  the  Church  of  the  Associate  Congregation  in  Salem,  were  you  present — 
question  waived. 


95 

Question — Do  you  recollect  of  Dr.  Bullions  requesting  Presbytery  at  the 
pro  re  natu  in  November,  1837,  to  proceed  in  the  trial  of  the  case,  and  that 
he  AvoLild  hold  himself  free  from  the  obligation  of  submitting  to  the  decision, 
if  adverse,  on  account  of  the  exclusion  of  certain  members  from  the  court. 

Question  objected  to  because  of  its  irrelevancy,  and  if  proper  should  be 
proved  by  the  minutes.  Objection  over-ruled  and  evidence  received.  Answer- 
ed, I  do  not  remember  of  any  such  thing. 

Question — In  what  particular  instance  was  Dr.  Bullions  found  guilty  of 
delinquencies  and  misconduct,  and  repeatedly  censured  for  them,  and  to  which 
censures  he  has  repeatedly  made  a  formal  submission,  and  as  often  retracted 
them  since  1830  ? 

Objection  made  by  Mr.  Fairchild  generally  and  particularly  that  the  in- 
stances are  immaterial;  objection  over-ruled,  also  that,  if  proved,  they  should 
be  proved  by  the  minutes. 

Answer — Dr.  Bullions  was  found  guilty  of  misconduct  and  a  censure  of  re- 
buke inflicted  on  him  by  the  Synod  in  the  month  of  May,  1830  ;  for  the  parti- 
culars of  that  misconduct  I  must  refer  to  the  minutes  of  Synod  for  1830, 
which  I  have  not  here.  The  commission  of  Synod  which  sat  in  Salem  in  the 
year  1832,  found  Dr.  Bullions  guilty  of  misconduct  for  which  an  admonition 
Avas  inflicted  on  him  by  them.  For  the  particulars  of  that  misconduct  I  must 
refer  to  the  minutes  of  the  commission  which  I  have  not  here.  Previous  to 
the  meeting  of  Synod  in  Baltimore,  in  1834,  at  a  meeting  of  Presbytery  in 
Hebron,  Dr.  Bullions  was  guilty  of  misconduct,  viz.  :  contempt  and  insubor- 
dination towards  Presbytery,  which  consisted  in  his  declaring  before  Presby- 
tery, that  he  had  reflected  with  himself  whether  it  was  not  the  Devil  that  was 
speaking  through  the  court  rather  than  the  spirit  of  God,  or  words  to  that 
effect ;  that  was  the  contempt,  also  a  main  business  at  that  meeting  was  that 
in  which  he  was  particularly  concerned,  and  he  was  expressly  required  to  wait 
and  attend  upon  it;  he  declared  that,  if  Presbytery  Avould  not  give  him  leave 
of  absence,  he  would  do  as  Foot  did,  take  himself  off',  or  words  to  that  effect, 
and  did  actually  go  oft^  laughing  at  the  Presbytery  ;  this  was  both  contempt 
and  insubordination  ;  for  the  date  of  these  things  I  would  refer  to  the  minutes 
of  Presbytery.  Between  this  time  and  the  meeting  of  Synod  which  took 
place  at  the  city  of  Baltimore  the  same  year  in  October  in  the  year  1834,  he 
was  suspended  by  Presbytery  for  misconduct.  At  the  meeting  of  Synod  in 
Baltimore,  in  October  1834,  he  was  by  the  Synod  found  guilty  of  misconduct, 
and  the  suspension  confirmed  and  continued;  for  greater  certainty  I  would  re- 
fer to  the  minutes  of  Synod  for  the  year  1834.  At  a  meeting  of  the  Presby- 
tery of  Cambridge,  March  3rd,  1836,  Dr.  Bullions  was  convicted  of  making  a 
declaration  which  was  without  foundation  and  slandrous.  He  acknowledged 
it,  and  was  adjudged  to  a  rebuke  and  submitted  to  the  same.  For  greater 
particularity  I  would  refer  to  the  minutes  of  the  Presbytery. 

Question. — Did  the  formal  submission  which  you  say  he  made  in  1830,  be- 
fore Synod,  grow  out  of  a  complaint  originally  made  in  Presbytery  by  you — 
waived. 

Question. — Did  the  sentence  of  rebuke  inflicted  by  the  Synod  in  1830,  grow 
out  of  a  complaint  originally  made  in  Presbytery  by  you.  The  question  is  ob- 
jected to  as  irrelevant  and  immaterial,  and  if  to  be  proved  at  all,  must  be  prov- 
ed by  the  minutes,  as  is  also  all' other  evidence  of  the  like  nature.  Objection 
over-ruled  and  the  evidence  received. 

Answer. — Properly  speaking,  I  had  not  made  a  complaint  against  Dr.  Bul- 
lions, but  I  believe  that  rebuke  grew  out  of  a  difficulty,  in  which  he  and  I  were 
parties  at  issue  before  Presbytery. 


9G 

Question. — Wliat  had.  the  Prcsbj'tery  done — ]iad  they  not  excused  you  for 
not  attending  on  the  lectures  of  Dr.  Bullions? 

Answer. — They  had.     For  particulars  see  minutes. 

This  question  and  evidence  is  objected  to  on  the  grounds  mentioned  in  last 
objection. 

Question. — Had  not  the  Presbytery  found  Dr.  Bullions  guilty  of  lying,  out 
of  which  this  grew,  at  the  time  of  the  rebuke  in  lb30  ? 

Answer. — I  cannot  say  from  memory. 

Question. — Do  you  mean  to  say  or  not  that  the  Synod  did  or  did  not  sustain 
Dr.  Bullion's  appeal  on  that  occasion  ? 

Answer. — 1  cannot  answer  as  to  the  particulars  of  any  such  distant  matters 
from  memory.  The  minutes  of  commission  to  which  I  referred,  are  contained 
in  a  copy  of  the  Religious  Monitor,  for  the  month  of  August,  1S32,  commen- 
cing on  page  167,  and  continuing  to  page  190. 

The  further  cross-examination  of  this  witness  is  adjourned  till  the  usual  no- 
tice shall  be  given  by  the  Complainants'  Solicitor,  by  the  agreement  of  the 
parties. 

The  cross-examination  being  read  over  to  the  witness  before  signing,  he 
makes  the  following  explanations : — At  the  close  of  folio  93,  after  the  word 
"  so,"  I  would  add  as  follows — "  that  is  as  the  latter  part  of  the  question  would 
seem  to  require."  I  would  also  explain  my  testimony  as  contained  in  folio 
112,  as  follows — By  adding  at  the  close  of  the  sentence  relative  to  submitting 
to  any  judgment,  as  follows  : 

"  The  submission  I  there  mean,  is  a  full  submission,  with  approbation  of  the 
sentence,  which  alone  belonged  in  that  case  to  the  sentence  of  rebuke,  but  to 
such  a  sentence  as  that  of  suspension,  a  man  ought  to  give  an  acquiescence  in 
practice,  though  he  may  not  approve  of  it,  but  protest  and  appeal  against  it, 
carrying  it  to  the  higher  court." 

Mr.  Allen  objects  to  this  last  alteration  and  addition,  on  the  ground  that  it 
is  new  matter,  not  pretended  by  the  witness  to  have  been  answered  at  the 
time  of  the  original  answer,  as  to  which  it  is  not  complained  that  said  origi- 
nal answer  was  not  correctly  taken  down. 

Mr.  Crary  objects  to  all  supposable  questions,  requiring  the  opinion  of  the 
witness,  in  the  cross-examination  of  the  present  witness,  by  Mr.  Allen  of 
counsel  for  Defendants. 

D.  GORDON, 
Sworn,  cross-examined,  read  to 
and  subscribed  by  the  witness, 
Oct.  28d,  1841,  before  me, 

JAMES  GIBSON,  Examiner  in  Chancery. 


IN    CHANCERY, 

Before   the   Chancellor 


William  Stevenson,  et  al,    ) 

vs.  /  Further  cross-deposition  of  David  Gordon. 

Alexander  Bullions,  et  al.  ) 

The  Reverend  David  Gordon,  a  witness  already  produced  on  the  part  of  the 
Complainants,  in  the  above  entitled  cause  and  thereupon  examined  by  Mr. 
Crary  of  counsel  for  said  Complainants  and  cross  examined  by  Mr.  Allen  o( 


97 

counsel  for  Defendants,  which  examination  having  been  adjourned  by  the  agree- 
ment of  the  parties  till  the  same  sliould  be  duly  brought  on,  pursuant  to  the 
usual  notice,  and  the  same  being  now  brought  on  by  such  notice  and  the  said 
witness  being  produced  deposeth  on  his  said  further  cross-examination  as  fol- 
lows, viz  — 

I  cannot  certainly  remember  the  names  of  the  ministerial  members  present  - 
at  the  December  meeting  of  the  Presbytery  in  Salem.  I  think  Mr.  Anderson, 
Mr.  Stalker,  Mr.  Miller,  Dr.  Bullions  and  myself  were  present,  but  for  greater 
certainty  I  refer  to  the  minutes.  That  was  an  adjourned  meeting  of  Presby- 
tery. 'The  purpose  of  the  adjournment,  was  to  allow  Dr.  Bullions  time  to  pre- 
pare his  answers  to  the  requisitions.  Mr.  Goodwillie  and  Mr.  Pringle  were 
neither  of  them  I  believe  present  at  this  meeting.  I  believe  Dr.  Bullions  did 
not  send  in  his  declinature  till  after  this  meeting,  but  for  dates  I  must  refer  to 
the  minutes.  Mr.  Stalker  was  excluded  from  a  seat  on  the  case  of  Dr.  Bul- 
lions at  that  meeting.  He  was  present  when  he  was  excluded.  The  minutesf 
are  correct  on  all  the  particulars  respecting  the  exclusion  of  Mr.  Stalker.  The 
minutes  state  all  the  evidence  I  believe,  that  was  had  or  taken  relative  to  hi^ 
exclusion.  I  do  not  recollect  of  any  other  evidence  being  taken  than  what  ap- 
pears on  the  minutes.  I  have  no  doubt  but  that  I  voted  in  favor  of  excludino- 
Mr.  Stalker  at  that  meeting.  I  have  no  doubt  but,  that  at  a  previous  meeting 
of  Presbytery  in  November,  '37,  I  voted  to  exclude  the  Rev.  Archibald  White 
from  a  seat  in  Presbytery  on  the  case  of  Dr.  Bullions.  I  do  not  recollect  who 
made  the  motion  to  exclude  Mr.  Stalker  from  a  seat.  I  do  not  recollect  that  I 
made  that  motion.  I  do  not  recollect  that  it  was  talked  of  before  the  meeting, 
that  Mr.  Stalker  should  be  excluded.  It  was  known  previous  to  the  meeting, 
that  Mr.  Stalker  had  prejudged  the  case  in  a  W'rittcn  speech  delivered  in  by 
him  to  Presbytery  at  the  meeting  in  November  previous — that  speech  was  de- 
livered in  by  him  on  the  demand  of  Presbytery — it  was  not  a  common  thing 
for  Presbytery  to  demand  a  speech  in  writing  because  there  never  was  exactly- 
such  a  speech  that  I  know  of.  When  any  written  speech  however  contains 
any  thing  injurious  or  disorderly,  it  may  be  called  for  by  Presbytery 

When  Mr.  Stalker's  exclusion  was  voted  I   do  not  remember  that  any  other  ' 
ministerial  members  were  present  than  Mr.  Miller,  Mr.  Anderson,  Dr.  Bullions 
and  myself. 

It  was  at  that  meeting,  after  the  exclusion  of  Mr.  Stalker,  that  Dr.  Bullions 
handed  in  his  answers  to  the  requisitions.  I  believe  Ke  handed  in  his  an- 
swers to  all  of  them  at  that  time;  as  to  exactness,  I  would  refer  to  the  min- 
utes. The  question  I  believe  was  taken  on  his  answers  to  these  requisitions. 
I  do  not  remember  that  any  of  the  answers  wei'e  voted  satisfactoiy.  I  do  not 
recollect  that  the  word  "  satisfactory"  was  used  as  to  any  one  of  them.  I  be^ 
lieve  one  of  the  answers  Avas  voted  to  be  "  accepted."  This  was  the  answer 
to  the  requisition  relative  to  his  appeal  to  the  "  searcher  of  hearts."  I  would 
refer  for  greater  particularity  to  the  minutes.'  I  do  not  remember  that  the  an- 
swer to  the  5th  requisition  Avas  voted  satisfactory  ;  the  minutes  however  Avill 
shew.  I  do  not  remember  that  Dr.  Bullions  claimed  to  have  the  minutes  of  a 
former  meeting  amended,  which  purported  to  state  his  verbal  answer  to  the 
fifth  requisition,  on  the  ground  that  at  that  meeting,  he  had  handed  in  a  writ- 
ten answer  to  that  requisition,  the  same  as  he  did  at  this  meetino-;  but  the 
minutes  will  shew.  Mr.  Anderson  was  the  stated  clerk  at  the  meeting  of 
Presbytery  in  Salem.  I  have  no  recollection  of  acting  as  clerk  at  any  meet- 
ing of  Presbytery,  except  the  meeting  at  Argyle  in  October,  1837.  I  have  no 
doubt  but  that  I  voted  that  the  answers  of  Dr.  Bullions  to  the  requisitions  were 

13 


98 

unsatifactorj',   except  the  answer  to  the  last  requisition,  on  which  I  do  not  re- 
collect how  I  voted. 

At  the  meeting  of  Pres])ytery,  when  I  declared  Dr.  Bullions  to  have  been 
the  author  of  the  anonj'uioiis  letters  referred  to,  in  my  direct  examination,  he 
was  then  present.  I  luive  no  recollection  that  any  thing  further  was  done  on 
this  point,  than  that  Presbytery  ordered  my  words  to  be  recorded  as  a  faulty- 
expression.  I  do  not  recollect  that  Presbytery  took  any  further  action  upon 
my  declaration,  than  to  record  the  same. 

At  the  meeting  of  Presbytery  in  February  after,  I  called  up  the  matter  and 
stated  that  there  was  an  expression  of  mine  recorded  on  the  minutes  as  faulty, 
and  wished  to  know  if  there  was  any  one  intended  to  prosecute  it,  if  not,  as  I 
did  not  wish  to  have  it  standing  there  against  me,  I  would  claim  it  as  my  right 
to  prove  the  truth  of  what  I  had  stated — it  was  not  properly  on  that  remark  of 
mine  that  Presbytery  took  action,  but  on  the  motion  of  another  member.  The 
ministerial  members  present  at  the  meeting  of  Presbytery  at  Hebron  in  Feb- 
ruary, 1838,  were  Mr.  Miller,  Mr.  Anderson,  Alex.  Gordon,  and  myself.  I  do 
not  recollect  of  any  other  ministerial  members  present  ;  but  the  minutes  will 
shew.  Dr.  Bullions  was  not  present ;  he  sent  in  his  declinature  at  that  meet- 
ing. The  case  was  taken  up  and  a  time  fixed  for  the  trial.  The  time  appoint- 
ed was  in  March,  I  think.  Dr.  Bullions  was  not  present  at  the  meeting  in 
March.  I  do  not  know  that  Dr.  Bullions  was  notified  of  that  meeting,  but 
Presbytery  ordered  that  he  should  be  notified.  At  the  meeting  in  Salem,  in 
March,  1838,  the  ministerial  members  present,  were  Messrs.  Miller,  Anderson 
and  myself.  I  do  not  remember  positively  who  were  present  ;  the  minutes 
will  show,  I  do  not  recollect  that  Mr.  A.  Gordon  was  present.  He  did  not  at 
all  events  sit  on  the  trial  ;  the  reason  was  because  he  was  my  brother. 

Mr.  Crary  objects  to  this  last  evidence  of  who  were  present  at  this  meeting; 
that  the  minutes  are  the  best  evidence,  and  should  be  produced. 

The  only  ministerial  members  Avho  sat  upon  the  trial  were  Messrs.  Miller 
and  Anderson.  I  have  no  recollection  that  Alexander  Gordon  had  any  thing 
to  do  with  the  trial,  or  sat  as  a  judge,  or  administered  oaths  to  the  witnesses 
thereupon  ;  but  the  minutes  Avili  sliow  particularly.  Messrs.  Anderson  and 
Miller,  I  have  no  doubt  agreed  in  the  judgment,  that  I  had  sustained  my  de- 
claration, but  as  for  Mr.  Millers  formally  voting,  I  cannot  say,  he  being  mod- 
erator. Among  other  proofs  which  I  exhibited  on  that  occasion  to  Presbytery, 
was  a  letter  purporting  to  be  from  David  McClure,  Postmaster  at  Franklingville. 
I  did  not  give  any  proof  to  Presbytery,  that  that  letter  was  in  the  hand  writing 
of  said  McClure,  further  than  that  it  came  in  direct  answer  to  one  that  I  wrote 
to  him.  I  did  not  give  any  further  proof  to  Presbytery  than  to  read  a  copy  of 
a  letter  which  I  had  written  to  Mr.  McClure,  and  to  Avhich  that  was  the  direct 
answer.  I  do  not  know  of  any  other  proof  that  Presbytery  had  of  my  having 
Avritten  that  letter,  than  that  I  so  stated — the  naked  statements  of  an  accuser 
are  not  taken  as  competent  evidence  to  prove  a  fact  before  an  ecclesiastical 
court — neither  are  the  statements  of  the  accused. 

D,  GOEDON, 
Sworn,  cross-examined  and  sub-  \ 
scribed  this  15th  day  of  Feb.,  in  > 
the  year  1842,  before  me  ) 

JAMES  GIBSON,  Examiner  in  Chancery. 


IN    CHANCERY: 

Before  the  Chancellor 


William  Stevenson,  et  al,    ) 

vs.  >  Further  cross-deposition  of  David  Gordon. 

Alexander  Bullions,  et  al.    ) 


The  Reverend  David  Gordon,  a  witness  already  produced,  on  the  part  of  the 
Complainants,  and  examined  by  Mr.  Crary,  of  counsel  for  Complainants,  in 
the  above  entitled  cause,  and  thereupon  cross-examined  by  Mr.  Allen,  of  coun- 
sel for  Defendants,  which  cross-examination  not  having  been  finished,  and  the 
witness  being  again  produced  and  further  cross-examined  by  Mr.  Allen,  depo- 
seth  as  follows,  viz  : 

Question  by  Mr.  Allen. — Was  Dr.  Bullions  present  at  the  meeting  of  Pres- 
bytery held  in  March,  1S3S,  at  Salem?  This  question  objected  to  by  Mr. 
Crary,  of  counsel  for  Complainants,  on  the  following  grounds,  viz : — That  the 
minutes  are  in  proof  and  are  now  before  the  examiner,  and  are  the  best  evi- 
dence and  parole  evidence  of  any  proceedings  of  Presbytery  is  not  competent. 
The  objection  was  over-ruled  by  the  examiner  and  the  evidence  received. 

Answer. — Dr.  Bullions  was  not  present  as  the  minutes  will  shew.  I  do  not 
recollect  how  I  voted  on  the  resolutions  contained  on  the  133d  page  of  the  min- 
utes of  Presbytery,  nor  how  I  voted  on  the  proceedings  on  that  page.  I  have 
no  doubt  I  did  vote  on  those  resolutions  and  proceedings,  but  I  have  no  dis- 
tinct recollection.  I  have  no  recollection,  distinct  or  otherwise,"  how  I  voted 
on  the  proceedings  and  resolutions  on  that  page.  There  was  no  declinature 
at  any  of  those  meetings,  that  came  in,  that  was  not  in  writing,  or  at  any  oth- 
er meeting  of  Presbytery,  that  I  remember. 

Question  by  Mr.  Allen — Was  Dr.  Bullions  present  at  the  meeting  of  Pres- 
bytery on  the  second  Tuesday  April,  1838  ? 

Answer — He  was  not  there  as  the  minutes  will  shew.  He  refused  to  attend, 
and  his  refusal  was  in  writing  I  believe.  I  presume  it  is  not  recorded  at  length 
on  the  minutes,  but  can  be  found  on  the  files  of  the  proceedings  of  Presbytery. 

Question  by  Mr.  Allen — It  appears  from  the  minutes  of  the  12th  April,  that 
a  citation  against  Dr.  Bullions  was  returned  as  served  on  him.  Do  you  know 
that  that  citation  was  issued  and  served  on  Dr.  Bullions  ? 

Answer — I  have  no  personal  knowledge  that  it  was  so  issued  or  served,  it 
belonged  to  the  clerk  to  do  il,  and  I  have  no  doubt  it  was  done. 

Question  by  Mr.  Allen — Did  you  vote  on  the  question  as  to  the  authorship 
of  those  letters  on  the  trial  of  Dr.  Bullions  on  the  12th  April,  183S  ? 

Answer — I  believe  I  did  not,  for  it  appears  by  the  minutes,  that  I  was  mod- 
erator at  that  time. 

Question  by  Mr.  Allen — Have  you  any  recollection  that  j-ou  voted  on  that 
question? 

Answer — I  do  not  believe  that  I  did,  neither  have  I  any  recollection  of  so  do- 

Question  by  Mr.  Allen — What  is  a  warrantable  declinature  according  to  the 
rules  of  the  Associate  Church  ? 

Answer — It  is  defined  in  Perdivan,  book  4th,  title  5th,  section  9th.  See 
page  194  of  Exhibit  C,  on  part  of  Complainants 

Question  by  Mr.  Allen — Have  you  any  authority  to  show  the  declinature  of 
Dr.  Bullions,  unwarrantable? 


100 

Answer — I  refer  as  authority  to  tlie  one  last  cited. 

Question  by  Mr.  Allen — Did  tlie  rebuke  wliich  you  spoke  of  as  liavinj^  been 
administered  by  Synod  to  Dr.  Bullions  at  their  session  in  May,  1830,  grow  out 
of  a  protest  and  appeal  taken  by  him  from  certain  decisions  of  the  Presbytery 
of  Cambridge,  in  February,  1S!29  ? 

Answer — I  believe  I  have  answered  this  question  already  on  my  cross  ex- 
amination The  rebuke  arose  from  a  difficulty  before  Presbytery  in  which  Dr. 
Bullions  and  myself  Avere  parties,  and  the-  minutes  will  shew  the  particular 
connection  of  the  matter.  1  can  not  state  the  particulars  at  this  time  from 
memory.  In  May,  1S30,  I  was  not  a  member  of  the  Associate  Synod.  I  was 
present  at  that  mcetinj;^  of  Synod.  I  was  not  at  that  time  a  member  of  the 
Presbytery  of  Cambridge.     I  had  not  then  been  licensed. 

Question  by  ]\Ir.  Allen — Had  you  for  some  time  previous  to  that  meeting  of 
Synod  been  a  student  of  divinity  with  Dr.  Bullions? 

Answer — I  had. 

Question  by  Mr.  Allen — Can   you  say  how  long  previous  ? 

Answer — I  can  not  say  precisely  how  long.  It  may  have  been  for  a  year 
previous.  The  question  is  objected  to  by  Mr.  Crary,  of  counsel  for  Complain- 
ants, on  the  grounds,  viz  :  that  the  testimony  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  case. 

Question  by  Mr.  Allen — During  the  time  you  were  student  with  Dr,  Bul- 
lions, had  you  and  he  difficulties  ? 

Answer — Yes,  we  had  difficulties,  for  which  I  refer  to  the  minutes  of  Pres- 
bytery, but  we  had  no  personal  difficulties. 

Question  by  Mr.  Allen — When  you  speak  of  personal  difficulties,  do  you 
mean  to  say  that  you  and  Dr.  Bullions  were  on  terms  of  friendship  at  that 
time. 

Answer — I  mean  that  Dr.  Bullions  had  done  nothing  to  injure  me  person- 
nally,  nor  I  to  injure  him  personally  that  I  know  of,  but  that  I  had  known  him 
grossly  violating  the  truth,  and  as  I  believe,  shewing  unfaithfulness  to  the  pro- 
fession which  was  my  offence  towards  him.  Mr.  Allen  objects  that  this  an- 
swer is  not  in  the  most  distant  manner  responsive  to  the  question. 

Question  by  Mr.  Allen — Were  you  on  terms  of  personal  friendship  with  Dr. 
Bullions  at  that  time  ?  Mr.  Clark  objects  to  this  question,  as  just  asked  and 
answered  by  the  witness. 

Answer — There  is  an  ambiguity  in  the  word  "friendship,"  as  there  used; 
if  it  means  the  opposite  of  ill  will  or  hostility,  I  had  no  such  ill  will  or  hos- 
tility, if  it  means  the  opposite  of  satisfaction  with  him,  then  I  was  highly 
dissatisfied  with  him.  Mr.  Crary  objects  to  this  testimony  on  the  ground  that 
it  refers  to  a  period  long  past,  and  is  no  evidence  of  the  present  feeling  of  the 
witness  towards  Dr.  Bullions." 

Question  by  Mr.  Allen — Did  this  feeling  of  dissatisfaction  exist  in  your 
mind  during  the  first  six  months  that  you  were  a  student  with  Dr.  Bullions  ? 
Mr.  Crary  objects  to  the  question  on  the  ground  that  it  has  nothing  to  do  with, 
and  is  inapplicable  to  this  case. 

Answer — It  did  not  at  all. 

Question  by  Mr,  Allen — When  did  it  first  commence. 

Answer — I  cannot  tell  precisely. 

Question  by  Mr,  Allen— Did  it  commence  before  you  ceased  being  a  student 
with  Dr.  Bullions  ? 

Answer — It  did,  Mr.  Crary  again  objects  to  this  testimony,  because  it  is 
detailing  the  particulars  of  a  controversy  between  the  witness  and  Dr.  Bullions, 
and  does  not  prove  that^there  is  at  this  time  any  ill  will  existing  between  them. 

Question  by  Mr,  Allen — Was  Mr.  Peter  Gordon  a  student  with  you  under 
Dr.  Bullions  during  a  pajt  of  this  time. 


101 

Answer — He  was. 

Question  by  Mr.  Allen — Did  you,  while  Peter  Gordon  was  studying  with 
Dr.  Bullions,  quit  your^studies  with  the  Doctor  ?  Question  objected  to  by  Mr. 
Crary  as  inapplicable  and  irrelevant.  The  objection  is  over-ruled  by  the  Ex- 
aminer and  the  evidence  received. 

Answer — I  did,  but  I  refer  to  the  minutes  of  Presbytery  to  shew  the  parti- 
culars of  the  case. 

Question  by  Mr.  Allen. — Were  you  called  to  account  in  Presbytery  for  so 
absenting  yourself.  The  question  is  objected  to  by  Mr.  Clark,  of  counsel  for 
Complainants  on  the  following. ground,  viz: — 1st,  That  this  has  nothincr  to  do 
with  the  cause,  directly  or  indirectly,  and  is  not  relevant.  2d,  That  if  proper 
evidence,  the  minutes  of  Presbytery  must  be  produced.  The  objections  are 
all  over-ruled  by  the  examiner,  and  the  evidence  received. 

Answer. — I  was  called  to  account  in  Presbytery. 

,  Question  by  Mr.  Allen. — Did  you  hand  in  to  Presbytery  reasons  in  writing 
why  you  had  so  absented  yourself.  Question  objected  to  for  the  reasons 
above.     The  objection  in  like  manner  over-ruled  and  the  evidence  received. 

Answer. — I  did  so. 

Question  by  Mr.  Allen. — Were  those  reasons  recorded  in  the  minutes  ? 
Question  objected  to  for  reasons  above. 

Answer. — I  am  not  the  clerk  and  cannot  say  certainly,  the  minutes  will 
shew. 

Question  by  Mr.  Allen. — Did  the  Presbytery  pass  upon  those  reasons,  at  the 
meeting  in  February,  1829,  and  decide  that  your  reasons  were  sufficient  to 
excuse  you  for  leaving  Dr.  Bullions  ?     Question  objected  to  for  reasons  above. 

Answer — They  did  decide  to  that  amount,  but  the  precise  form  of  the  de- 
cision I  must  refer  to  the  minutes  for,  as  I  do  not  precisely  recollect. 

Question  by  Mr.  Allen — Did  Dr.  Bullions  protest  and  appeal  from  that  de- 
cision to  Synod  ?  Same  objection  by  Mr.  Clark,  as  above.  The  objection  in 
like  manner  over-ruled  and  the  evidence  received. 

Answer — Dr.  Bullions  protested  several  times  on  that  occasion,  but  for  the 
precise  points  on  which  he  protested  I  must  wholly  refer  to  the  minutes. 

Question  by  Mr.  Allen — Have  you  not  a  distinct  recollection  that  Dr.  Bullions 
protested  and  appealed  from  that  decision  particularly  ?  Objected  to  by  Mr. 
Clark  for  reasons  above.  Objection  in  like  manner  over-ruled  and  evidence 
received. 

Answer — I  have  no  doubt  but  that  Dr.  Bullions  did  protest  and  appeal  from 
that  decision  particularly. 

Question  by  Mr.  Allen — Was  you  present  at  the  meeting  of  the  Presbytery 
of  Cambridge  May  the  6th,  1829  ?] 

Answer — I  do  not  remember  whether  I  was  present  or  not. 

Question  by  Mr.  Allen — Were  you  present  at  the  meeting  of  the  Cambridge 
Presbytery  held  on  the  9th  day  of  September,  1829  ? 

Answer — 1  do  not  remember  that  I  was  present  at  that  meeting. 

Question  by  Mr.  Allen — Was  you  present  at  the  meeting  of  the  Presbytery 
of  Cambridge  in  October,  1829  ?     Or  at  the  November  meeting  same  year  ? 

Answer — I  do  not  recollect. 

Question  bv  Mr.  Allen — Were  you  present  at  the  meeting  of  Presbytery  in 
February,  1830? 

Answer — I  do  not  recollect. 

Question  by  Mr.  Allen — Do  you  remember  whether  you  were  present  at  the 
meeting  of  the  Presbytery  in  May,  1830? 

Answer — I  do  not  recollect  of  being  present  at  the  meeting  in  May.  I  think 
likely  I  was  present  at  some  of  the  meetings,  but  dou't  remember  particularly 


102 

Question  by  Allen — Wore  j^ou  present  at  any  of  the  meotinffs  of  Presbyte- 
ry of  Cambriili^L'  in  Piiiladolpliia,  diirini;  the  i5ession  of  Synod,  in  May,  1830  ? 

Answer. — I  was  at  that  meeting  of  Synod,  andvery  probably  at  the  meetings 
of  Presbytery  tliere,  but  do  not  particularly  remember.  A  pamphlet  is  now 
produced  by  the  Defendants,  being  (he  June  number  o(  the  lieligiuuf  Monitor, 
for  1830,  being  the  first  number  of  vol.  7th,  published  at  Albany,  by  B.  D. 
Packard  tSc  Co.,  which  document  is  marked  as  Exhibit  C  on  part  of  Defendants. 
The  witness  states  that  this  document  contains  the  proceedings  of  Synod,  for 
1830.  A  pamphlet  is  dlso  produced  by  the  Defendants,  being  the  June  num- 
ber of  the  Religious  Monitor,  for  1832,  published  at  Albany,  by  Chauncey  Web- 
ster, which  is  marked  as  Exhibit  D  on  part  of  Defendants.  The  witness  states 
that  the  document  produced  contains  the  minutes  of  Synod  for  1832.  The 
August  number  of  the  same  work  for  1832,  is  also  produced  by  Mr.  Allen,  and 
marked  as  Exhil)it  E  on  part  of  Defendants.  The  witness  states  that  this  doc- 
ument contains  the  minutes  of  the  commission  of  Synod,  for  the  trial  of  cau- 
ses between  the  Associate  Presbytery  of  Cambridge  andDr.  Bullions,  commen- 
cing on  page  167  and  concluded  on  page  189. 

Question  by  Mr.  Allen — Have  your  feelings  towards  Dr.  Bullions,  undergone 
any  change  since  you  left  him  as  a  student  ? 

Answer — I  am  not  conscious  either  now  or  heretofore  of  entertaining  feelings 
of  ill-will  or  hatred  to  Dr.  Bullions. 

Question  by  JMr.  Allen — Are  j-ou  on  friendly  terms  with  Dr.  Bullions  ? 

Answer — If  you  mean  by  that,  being  on  terms  of  intimate  intercourse,  I 
certainly  am  not. 

Question  by  Mr.  Allen — Are  you  his  friend  now? 

Answer — I  am  not  conscious  of  entertaining  feelings  of  hatred  or  hostility  to 
him. 

Question  by  Mr.  Allen — Do  you  feel  perfectly  friendly  towards  Dr.  Bullions, 
as  you  did  when  you  commenced  studying  with  him  ? 

Answer — I  have  not  the  same  feelings  of  attachment  and  respect  for  him 
that  I  then  had,  because  I  then  knew  no  cause  of  offence  in  him,  as  I  have 
since  done;  still  I  trust  I  have  no  unchristian  dislike  or  opposition  to  him. 

Question  by  Mr.  Allen — Was  the  gross  violation  of  truth,  which  you  state 
in  your  cross-examination  to  have  been  made  by  Dr.  Bullions,  made  a  matter 
of  charge  against  him,  by  you  before  Presbytery  ? 

Answer — I  did  not  strictly  speaking  make  a  charge,  but  it  was  contained  in 
the  paper  which  I  gave  into  Presbytery,  containing  the  "grounds  of  reasons." 

Question  by  Mr.  Allen — Was  one  of  the  charges  of  falsehood  to  which  you 
allude,  as  above,  relative  to  an  invitation  said  to  have  been  given  to  a  Mr. 
Mitchell  to  preach  in  Salem. 

Answer — I  believe  it  did,  but  as  to  the  particular  connection  of  matters  I 
could  not  distinctly  speak  from  memory. 

Question  by  Mr.  Allen — What  was  the  other — was  it  relative  to  a  minute 
of  Presbytery  admitting  Mr.  Pringle  as  a  preacher  in  the  Associate  Church  ? 

Answer — I  could  not  undertake  to  answer  as  to  such  distant  matter  from 
memory.  I  have  no  distinct  recollection  so  as  to  be  able  to  answer  under  oath 
here  as  to  this  subject. 

Question  by  Mr.  Allen — Did  you  not  know  when  you  stated  as  above,  that 
you  knew  that  Dr.  Bullions  had  been  guilty  of  a  gross  violation  of  the  truth, 
to  what  instance  or  instances  you  alluded  ? 

Answer — I  knew  it  was  a  fact,  although  I  could  not  call  presently  to  mind  a 
number  of  particular  instances. 

Question  by  Mr.  Allen — Did  you  call  to  mind  a  single  instance  ? 


103 

Answer — I  do  not  remember  what  instance  was  in  my  mind  at  that  moment, 
although  I  knew  it  was  a  fact.  I  can  not  say  now  precisely  what  was  in  my 
mind  at  that  moment  on  the  point,  although  I  knew  it  to  he  a  fact.  It  was  one 
of  the  greatest  grievances  of  which  we  there  complained.  I  wish  to  correct 
the  former  part  of  my  testimony  where  I  state,  that  I  was  a  student  of  divini- 
ty under  Dr.  Bullions  previous  to  the  meeting  of  Synod,  hy  saying  that  it  was 
not  immediately  previous  to  that  meeting  of  Synod.  I  would  wish  also  fur- 
ther to  correct  the  former  part  of  my  cross  examination,  in  which  I  stated  that 
Dr.  Bullions'  answer  to  the  7th  requisition  given  in  at  the  meeting  in  Salem,  was 
voted  to  be  accepted.  Having  since  examined  the  minutes,  it  is  otherwise  re- 
corded ;  and  while  the  minutes  are  better  testimony  than  my  memory.  Still 
I  can  not  say  that  I  have  any  diflerent  recollection  from  what  I  stated.  The 
minutes  also  shew  at  that  meeting  a  unanimous  vote  of  "satisfactory,"  which 
appears  inconsistent  with  my  testimony,  on  which  my  memory  does  not  yet 
otherwise  serve  me.  D.  GORDON. 

Sworn,  cross-examined,  and  sub-  ) 
scribed  this  16th  day  of  Feb.  > 
in  the  year  1842,  before  me,       ) 

JAMES  GIBSON,  Examiner  in  Chancery. 


— <o*o»- 


IN    CHANCERY, 

Before   the    Chancellor, 


William  Stevenson,  et  al,    ) 

vs.  /  David  Gordon's  direct  examination  resumed, 

Alexander  Bullions,  et  al.   ) 


David  Gordon,  a  witness,  produced  on  the  part  of  the  Complainants,  and 
examined  by  their  counsel,  and  thereupon  cross-examined  by  Mr.  Allen,  of 
counsel  for  Defendants  ;  being  now  re-examined  by  Mr.  Clark,  of  counsel  for 
said  Complainants,  deposeth  as  follows  : 

Question  by  Mr.  Clark — Is  the  paper  on  page  28  of  Exhibit  C,  on  part  of 
Complainants  a  true  copy  of  the  refusal  of  Dr.  Bullions  to  attend  the  Presby^ 
tery  on  the  12th  day  of  April,  1838?  This  question  objected  to  by  Mr.  Allen, 
of  counsel  for  Defendants  on  the  following  grounds,  viz.:  Because  the  origin- 
al ought  to  be  produced,  and  that  that  Exhibit  has  been  already  objected  to  aS' 
an  improper  Exhibit.  The  objections  are  over-ruled  by  the  Examiner,  and  the 
evidence  received. 

Anwswer — It  is  a  true  copy  of  that  refusal ;  I  never  had  any  personal  diffi' 
culties  with  Dr.  Bullions  other  than  those  which  appear  on  the  minutes  of  Pres- 
bytery. 

Question  by  Mr.  Clark — When  did  you  receive  the  anonymous  letter  mark- 
ed as  Exhibit  H,  on  part  of  Complainants?  The  question  objected  to  by  Mr, 
Allen,  of  counsel  for  Defendants  on  the  following  grounds,  viz. : — Because  it 
is  calling  the  attention  of  the  witness  to  a  matter  upon  Avhich  he  has  been  al- 
ready examined  in  his  direct  examination.  The  Examiner  over-rules  the  ob- 
jection of  Mr.  Allen  and  receives  the  testimony. 

Answer — I  received  that  paper  on  the  first  Sabbath  in  March,  1837. 

Question  by  Mr.  Clark — Who  gave  it  to  you,  and  when  and  how  ?  Objected 
to  for  same  reasons  as  above.  The  Examiner,  in  like  manner,  over-rules  the 
objection  and  receives  the  testimony. 

Answer — William  Fenwick  gave  it  to  me  on  our  meeting-house  green,  in- 


104 

Salem,  in  a  close  envelope,  1  believe  after  public  worship,  in  the  forenoon  or 
afternoon. 

Question  by  Mr.  Clark — Is  William  Fcnwick  a  relative,  and  if  so  wliat, 
of  Dr.  Bullions  ?  Question  objected  to  by  ^Ir.  Allen  on  same  grounds  as  above, 
and  also  that  it  is  immaterial  and  irrelevant.  The  Examiner  over-rules  the 
objection  of  Mr.  Allen  and  receives  the'testimony. 

Ansu'er — He  is  the  brother-in-law  of  Dr.  Bullions,  ecclesiastically  speaking, 
that  is  notwithstanding  the  death  of  Mr.  Fcnwick's  \yife,  who  was  the  sister  of 
Dr.  Bullions. 

Question  by  Mr.  Clark — Was  Dr.  Bullions  repeatedly  called  to  order  by 
the  moderator,  and  did  he  refuse  to  observe  any  order  and  continue  boisterous, 
and  to  such  an  extent  that  it  was  impossible  for  Presltytery  to  proceed  to  their 
business  without  silencing  him  as  referred  to  in  folio  97  of  your  testimony? — 

The  question  is  objected  to  by  Mr.  Allen,  of  counsel  for  Defendants,  on  the 
following  grounds,  viz  :  because  the  same  question  which  is  now  put,  or  the 
substance  of  it  has  been  already  put,  and  answered  in  the  direct  examination, 
and  the  minutes  arc  the  best  evidence  of  what  his  conduct  was.  The  objec- 
tions are  over-ruled  by  the  Examiner  and  the  evidence  received. 

Answer — Dr.  Bullions,  Avas  repeatedly  called  to  order  by  the  moderator,  yet 
continued  to  disobey  and  by  his  disorder  or  boisterousness  prevented  all  busi- 
ness till  he  was  silenced.  I  was  not  a  member  of  the  Presbytery  of  Cambridge 
during  the  years  1829,  1830,  erf  lS3l.  Mr.  Miller  became  a  member  of  Pres- 
bytery in  the  fall  of  1829,  I  think. 

Question  by  Mr.  Clark — Was  Mr.  Anderson,  a  member  of  Presbytery  du- 
ring the  years  1829,  1830,  or  1831,  or  Mr.  Reid,  during  those  years.  The 
question  is  objected  to  by  Mr.  Allen  of  counsel  for  Defendants  on  the  following 
ground,  viz  : — because  it  is  asking  question  as  to  the  facts  which  are  upon  the 
minutes  of  Presbytery  and  which  are  here  and  will  best  shew.  The  objection 
is  over-ruled  by  the  Examiner,  and  the  evidence  received. 

Answer — They  were  not  members  during  those  years. 

Question  by  JVlr.  Clark— Were  Messrs.  Lang,  Dr.  Bullions,  Peter  Bullions, 
Alex.  Gordon,  Stark,  Campbell,  Martin,  Ervin,  White,  Thomas  Godwillie  and 
Mr.  Pringlc,  members  of  the  Presbytery  of  Cambritlge  in  1829  ?  The  ques- 
is  objected  to  by  Mr.  Allen  of  counsel  for  Defendants,  on  the  following  ground 
viz  ; — because  it  appears  by  the  minutes,  and  they  are  present  find  ar'e  the  best 
evidence.  The,  objection  is  over-ruled  by  the  Examiner,  and  the  evidence  re- 
ceived. 

Answer — With  the  exception  of  Mr,  Pringle,  the  persons  named  were  all 
members  in  1829,  I  think  the  minutes  will  shew. 

Question  by  Mr.  Clark— Did  the  Presbytery  actually  inflict  the  censure  re- 
ferred to  in  the  last  line  of  folio  102  of  your  testimony.  The  question  is  ob- 
jected to  by  Mr.  Allen,  on  the  following  ground,  viz  :— because  the  minutes 
Avill  shew,  and  he  has  directly  answered  the  question  before.  The  objection  is 
over-ruled  by  the  Examiner,  and  the  evidence  received. 

Answer — The  Presbytery  did  not  actually  inflict  the  censure. 
Question  by  Mr.   Clark  —Why  did  they  not  inflict  it  ?     This    question  ob- 
jected to  by  Mr.  Allen,  of  counsel  for  Defendants,  because  the  question   has 
been  directly  answered  by  the  witness  before.     The  objection  is  over-ruled  by 
the  Examiner,  and  the  evidence  received. 

Answer — They  did  not  inflict  the  censure,  because  he  refused  to  submit  to  it. 
Question  by  Mr.  Clark — Were  the  minutes  of  Presbytery  here  during  your 
direct  examination  ? 

Answer — I  think  not.  At  all  events  they  were  not  here  when  the  examina- 
tion commenQed. 


105 

Question  by  Mr.  Clark — Had  Mr.  Allen,  of  counsel  for  Defendants,  in  hw 
hands  during  his  cross-examination  of  you  to-day,  a  book  purporting  to  be  th« 
minutes  of  Presbytery,  for  the  years  1829  and  1834  inclusive  ? 

Answer — He  had. 

Question  by  Mr.  Clark — When  he  asked  you  a  question  relative  to  the  pro- 
ceedings of  Presbytery,  did  he  submit  the  book  to  you  or  keep  it  in  his  own 
hands  or  lying  by  him  ? 

At  one  time  he  presented  it  to  me  to  attest  as  the  minutes,  but  at  all  other 
times  he  kept  it  by  him. 

Question  by  Mr.  Clark — Did  Mr.  Anderson,  the  clerk  of  the  Presbytery, 
produce  that  book  to  him  at  his  request  ? 

Answer — He  did. 

Question  by  Mr.  Clark — Has  Mr.  Anderson  beeti  present  here  all  day  duf 
ing  this  examination  ? 

Answer — I  believe  he  has* 

D.  GORDON. 

Sworn,  examined  and  subscrib-  1 
ed^this  16th  day  of  Feb.,  in  > 
the  year  1842,  before  me,  ) 

JAMES  GIBSON, Examiner  in  Chancery, 


IN   CHANCERY, 
Before   the   Chancellor 


William  Stevenson,  et  al,    ^ 

vs.  >  Further  (Sross-deposition  of  David  GotifeoN. 

Alexander  Bullions^  et  al.   ) 


David  Gordon,  a  witness  produced  on  part  of  Complainants  in  (he  above  en* 
titled  cause,  and  thereupon  examined  by  Mr.  Clark,  as  their  counsel,  and  then 
cross-examined  by  Mr.  Allen,  of  counsel  for  said  Defendants,  and  afterwards 
re-examined  by  Mr.  Clark,  of  counsel  for  said  Complainants,  and  being  again 
cross-examined  by  Mr<  Allen,  on  such  further  cross-examination,  deposeth  as 
follows,  viz  ;-^I  am  one  of  the  committee  who  signed  Exhibit  C,  on  part  of 
Complainants.  I  approved  of  it  but  did  not  write  any  part  of  it.  The  chief 
of  it  I  believe  was  penned  by  Mr.  Anderson.  I  can  not  say  that  Mr.  Miller 
penned  any  part  of  it^  I  should  think  Mr.  Anderson  penned  the  chief  of  it 
except  the  documents  and  the  appendix.  I  can  not  remember  the  particular 
comparison  of  thai  particular  paper  at  the  top  of  page  28  of  Exhibit  C,  with 
the  original,  but  I  do  know  that  we  took  time  and  pains  to  have  the  whole 
work  correct.  It  was  printed  in  1888j  but  I  do  not  know  precisely  when  it 
was  drawn  up.  I  do  not  know  of  any  difficulties!  have  had  with  Dr.  Bullions, 
other  than  those  which  are  on  the  minutes  of  Presbytery.  I  have  had  no  pri- 
viate  difficulties  with  Dr.  Bullions  or  any  member  of  his  family. 

Question  by  Mr.  Allen — Have  you  any  knowledge  or  recollection,  that  Df« 
Bullions  charged  you  with  having  improperly  obtained  a  private  letter  of  his, 
and  making  an  improper  use  of  it  ? 

Answer — I  have  no  remembrance  of  any  such  charge,  and  it  is  not  true  that 
I  ever  did  so.  I  do  not  remember  that  it  was  ever  alleged  against  me  in  Pres- 
bytery, by  any  one.  When  Mr.  Allen  presented  me  the  book  purporting  to  be 
the  minutes  of  Presbytery,  he  asked  me  if  they  were  the  minutes  of  PrsBby- 
14 


106 

lAf}'.  I  replied,  that  not  being  the  clerk,  I  could  not  attest  them  from  my  own 
knowledge.  I  believe  I  did  not  after  that  ask  to  see  them.  I  was  with  John 
Robertson  once  at  Mr.  Crary's  house,  but  1  do  not  recollect  precisely  when.  I 
was  not  there  for  the  purpose  of  assisting,  nor  did  I  assist  at  any  time  in  any 
measure  so  far  as  I  know  in  preparing  the  facts  for  the  filing  of  the  bill  or  for 
Any  other  purpose,  nor  have  1  taken  any  part  in  it  in  any  manner  that  I  know 
of  except  as  a  witness. 

D.  GORDON. 
Sworn,  cross-examined  and  sub-  ) 
scribed  this    16th  day  of  Feb.  > 
in  the  year  1842,  before  me.       ) 

JAMES  GIBSON,  Examiner  in  Chancery. 


IN    CHANCERY: 

Befoee  the  Chancellok 


William  SxEVENsorf,  ct  al,     ) 

vs.  >  Deposition  of  Abkaham  Anderso??. 

Alexander  Bullions,  et  al.    ) 

Deposition  of  Abraham  Anderson,  a  witness  produced,  sworn  and  examined  in  a 
certain  cause  now  pending  in  the  court  of  Chancery,  of  the  state  of  New  York, 
before  the  Chancellor  of  said  state,  wherein  William  Stevenson,  William  Rob- 
ertson, William  McGeoch,  Edward  Small,  John  McArthur,  James  McArthur, 
Robert  McArthur,  Peter  McArthur,  George  Small,  James  Arnot,  John  Arnot, 
Edward  Cook,  John  Robertson,  Thomas  McMorris,  James  Hoy,  John  McDoual, 
Isaac  Ashton,  John  Foster  and  William  Livingston,  members  of  the  church  in 
full  communion,  known  as  the  Associate  Congregation  of  Cambridge,  of  the 
county  of  Washington,  and  state  of  New  York,  adhering  to  the  principles  of 
Associate  Presbytery  of  Pennsylvania  formerly,  now  the  Associate  Synod  of 
North  America,  are  Complainants,  and  Alexander  Bullions,  James  Shiland, 
Robert  Met  lelland,  Peter  Hill,  Trustees  of  the  Associate  Congregation  of 
Cambridge,  together  with  the  Associate  Congregation  of  Cambridge,  of  the 
county  of  Washington,  adhering  to  the  principles  of  the  Associate  Presbytery 
of  Pennsylvania  formerly,  now  the  Associate  Synod  of  North  America,  are 
Defendants,  on  the  part  of  the  said  Complainants,  before  James  Gibson,  one 
of  the  Examiners  in  Chancery  of  said  state,  at  the  house  of  Chester  Safford, 
jr.,  in  the  town  of  Salem,  in  the  county  of  Washington,  commencing  on  the 
tenth  day  of  November,  in  the  year  1841,  as  follows,  viz  : — 

The  Reverend  Abraham  Anderson,  produced  as  aforesaid,  duly  sworn,  and 
now  examined  by  Mr.  Fairchild,  of  counsel  for  Complainants,  deposeth  as 
follows  : 

I  am  about  51  years  of  age,  and  I  reside  in  the  town  of  Hebron,  in  the  coun- 
ty of  AYashington,  and  state  of  New  York ;  and  I  am  by  profession  a  cXergy- 
man  of  the  Associate  Church.  I  am  a  settled  minister  over  a  Congregation  in 
Hebron.  This  Congregation  is  in  Cambridge  Presbytery.  I  have  been  set- 
tled there  a  little  over  eight  years.  I  have  been  a  minister  in  the  Associate 
Church,  19  years.  I  w^as  a  member  of  the  Cambridge  Presbytery  in  the  year 
1S37,  and  have  been  during  the  whole  eight  years  of  my  ministry  in  the  Con- 
gregation in  Hebron.  I  w^as  present  at  the  'meeting  of  that  Presbytery  held 
»J  South  Ar^yle  on  the  fifth  day  of  October,  in  the  year  1837,  sX  which  meet- 


107 

ing  Dr.  Bullions  was  suspended  from  the  exercise  of  the  ministry,  and  from 
the  communion  of  the  Church.  This  Presbytery  was  duly  constituted.  The 
members  present  were  Messrs.  Stalker,  Dr.  Bullions,  Alexander  Gordon,  James 
P.  Miller,  D.  Gordon,  and  myself,  ministers  in  the  Associate  Church  ;  the  ei* 
ders  present  were  Benj.  Skellie,  John  Robertson,  John  Henry,  John  T.  Law, 
George  Boyd,  all  ruling  elders.  In  the  Associate  Church,  two  minisiers  and 
one  elder  make  a  quorum  of  a  Presbytery.  The  ministers  I  have  named,  were 
the  ministers  who  usually  attended  meetings  of  Presbytery.  The  elders  nam- 
ed occasionally  attended.  Dr.  Bullions  then  met  with  us  as  a  minister  in  good 
standing  in  the  Associate  Church.  At  that  meeting  of  Presbytery,  Dr.  Bul- 
lions said  things  included  in  the  grounds  of  suspension,  and  refused  things 
which  are  included  in  those  grounds. 

Mr.  Allen,  of  counsel  for  Defendants,  objects  to  any  testim-ony  of  the  wit- 
ness relative  to  the  suspension  of  Dr.  Bullions,  or  the  grounds  of  it,  on  the 
ground  that  the  minutes  of  Presbytery  are  the  best  evi-dence.  Objection 
over-ruled  by  the  examiner.  I  state  from  the  minutes  of  Presbytery,  whidi 
are  now  before  me  that  the  grounds  of  that  suspension  were  as  follows  :-^ 
One  was,  what  was  considered  a  slanderous  assertion  respecting  some  mem- 
bers of  Presbytery.  Another  was,  denying  his  own  words  while  he  repeated 
the  substance  of  them.  Another  was  using  contemptuous  language  to  Pres- 
bytery. Also  refusing  to  specify  charges.  Also,  persisting  in  all  this.  Mr. 
Allen  of  counsel  for  Defendants  objects  to  complainants  proving  any  specific 
charges  against  Dr.  Bullions,  on  the  ground  that  there  is  no  foundation  there- 
for in  the  Bill  of  complaint,  and  to  any  evidence  whatever  relative  to  the  pro- 
ceedings of  the  Associate  Presbytery  of  Cambridge  against  Dr.  Bullions,  oth- 
er than  what  appears  on  the  minutes  of  Presbytery.  Objection  over-ruled  by 
the  examiner  and  the  evidence  received. 

Question  by  Mr.  Fairchild — Were  you  present  in  Presbytery  when  Dr.  Bul- 
lions gave  what  he  said  were  the  words  he  had  used  relative  to  some  member* 
of  Presbytery,  and  if  you  Avere,  what  were  the  words  ?    State.    Mr.  Allen  ob- 
jects that  the  minutes  state  this  and  they  are  the  only  proper  evidence.     The 
minutes  on  page  97,  interleaved,  being  the  minutes  of  a  meeting  of  Presbyte- 
ry of  February  7th,  1838,  filling  up  the  minutes  of  October  5th,  1837,  contain 
what  I  believe  to  be  a  true  answ^er  to   the  question  put  to  me.     I  was  present 
at  the  meeting  of  Presbytery  in  October,  when  the  matters  stated  in  the  filling 
up   occurred.     It  is  a  rule  in  the   Associate   Church,  for   which  I  refer  to  the 
Book  of  Discipline,  page  27,  at  the  bottom,  that  if  a  member  persists  in  speak- 
ing more  frequently  than  the  laws  of  the  Church  permit,  and  in  disobedience 
to  the  moderator,  he  shall  lose  the  privilege  of  debate  for  that  sitting.     When 
Dr.  Bullions  refused  to  submit  to  the  censure  of  rebuke,  the  censure  was  not 
actually  inflicted.     It  is  the  opinion  of  some  that  a  rebuke  ought  not  to  be  in- 
flicted   when    the    culprit    refuses    to    submit    to  the   rebuke.     Mr.  Allen 
objects  that  it  is  irrelevant  and  immaterial  what  is  the  opinion  of  some  on  that 
point.     Objection  over-ruled  and  the  evidence  received.     The  Presbytery  had 
a  right  to  proceed  further  in  the  case  of  Dr.  Bullions,  although  he  had  protest- 
ed and  appealed  from  the  decision  to  rebuke  him.     The  Presbytery  had  also 
the  right  to  suspend  him  as  stated  in  the  minutes.     As  authorities  for  the  right 
to  proceed  after  protest  and  appeal  I  would  cite  the  Book  of  Discipline,  page 
60th,  at  the  foot  of  the  page.     As  authority  for  my  answer  relative  to  the  right 
#f  Presbytery  to  suspend,  I  would  refer  to  the  Book  of  Discipline,  page  55th, 
Section  third. 

Question  by  Mr.  Fairchild, — What  is  the  efTect  of  a  protest  and  appeal  when 
admitted  ? 


108 

Answer — It  sists  proceedurc  ;  Perdivan,  page  195 — 215. 

Question  by  Mr.  Fairchild. — What  does  the  term  "  sist"  mean  ? 

Answer — It  means  stay.  A  protest  and  appeal  not  admitted  allows  the  ju- 
dicatory to  proceed  to  the  final  issue  of  the  case.  The  term  "  issuing  of  the 
ease"  as  used  by  the  Associate  Church  means  to  proceed  to  the  final  judg- 
ment and  execution  of  the  same.  As  proof  of  this  I  would  cite  page  60th,  of 
the  Book  of  Discipline.  Also  Perdivan,  page  189,  Section  llth,and  12th,  show- 
ing instant  deposition  to  be  in  the  power  of  the  court.  The  effect  of  an  ap- 
peal is  to  refer  the  case  to  a  higher  court  without  suspending  the  decision  pas- 
sed ;  Perdivan,  page  195,  Section  llfh.  The  rule  allowing  a  Church  court  to 
reject  a  protest  implies  the  Presbyterial  doctrine  that  it  must  be  left  with  the 
court  and  not  with  the  individual  j  udged,  to  determine  the  necessity  of  immedi- 
ate censure.  This  last  answer  objected  to  as  irrelevant  and  immaterial  and  as 
being  argumentative  and  giving  the  opinion  of  the  witness.  Objection  over- 
ruled and  the  evidence  received  by  the  examiner.  The  party  having  the  priv- 
ilege of  a  second  protest  is  denied  none  of  his  rights  before  a  superior  court. 
See  Book  of  Discipline,  page  61st,  at  the  top  of  the  page. 

Question  by  Mr,  Fairchild.— When  an  individual  is  decided  against  and 
protests  and  appeals,  are  the  court  bound  to  admit  the  protest  ?  Objected  to 
as  already  asked  and  answered.     Evidence  received. 

Answer. — The  court  is  not  absolutely  bound  to  do  so.  If  the  individual  still 
wishes  his  case  appealed  to  the  higher  court  he  protests  against  the  rejection  of 
his  protest  and  appeals  to  the  superior  court.  The  court  generally  receives  or 
admits  this  protest.  The  effect  of  a  second  protest  and  appeal  is  to  carry  up 
the  subject  on  which  the  first  protest  was  offered.  See  Book  of  Discipline, 
page  sixty  first. 

Question  by  Mr.  Fairchild — Suppose  after  the  rejection  of  the  first  protest 
and  appeal  further  proceedings  are  had  in  the  court  upon  the  case,  do  such  fur- 
ther proceedings  come  under  review  in  the  court  appealed  to  by  virtue  of  the 
second  protest  and  appeal  ? 

Answer — If  the  appeal  be  sustained  they  may.  If  it  be  not  sustained  they 
may  not.  According  to  my  understanding  of  it.  Dr.  BuUions's  case  never  came 
before  Synod  by  protest  and  appeal. 

I  am  the  regular  clerk  of  the  Presbytery  of  Cambridge,  and  have  been  since 
the  month  of  November,  1533.  An  intimation  was  made  to  Dr.  Bullions,  by 
members  of  Cambridge  Presbytery,  as  follows  : — and  no  objections  made  to 
the  proposals,  that  he  should  furnish  the  means  of  investigation  by  specifying 
names  charged,  and  the  particular  charges,  as  all  that  vi'ould  be  required.  Dr. 
Bullions  utterly  refused  to  comply  Avith  this  intimation,  except  in  one  case. — 
He  gave  the  names  of  the  persons  charged.  These  names  are  Messrs.  Miller, 
Anderson,  and  Alexander  and  D.  Gordon.  It  was  the  duty  and  the  right  of 
Dr.  Bullions  to  prosecute  the  four  persons  before  Presbytery  on  these  charges, 
which  he  never  did.  See  Book  of  Discipline,  pages  42, 43  and  44  ;  Perdivan, 
pages  167  and  168.  If  Dr.  Bullions  had  succeeded  in  making  out  the  truth  of 
his  charges,  it  would  have  exonerated  himself.  No  member  of  Presbytery, 
that  I  know  of,  was  excluded  from  acting  or  voting  on  the  case  of  Dr.  Bul- 
lions at  the  meeting  when  he  was  suspended,  held  October  5th,  1837.  If  there 
was,  it  would  appear  by  the  minutes  of  Presbytery.  The  Doctor  did  not  at 
this  meeting  of  Presbytery,  after  his  suspension,  make  any  satisfactory  ac- 
knowledgement. He  did  not  make  any  aknowledgement.  Objected  to  by 
Mr.  Allen,  as  improper,  because  it  is  proving  by  parole,  what  can  only  be  prov- 
ed by  the  minutes.     Over-ruled. 

Church  courts  ar«  bound  to  forgive  whenever  sufficient  evidence  of  repcn- 


109 

tance  is  given.  The  next  meeting  of  Presbytery  was  at  Cambridge,  on  the 
14th  day  of  November,  1837.  It  was  a  pro  re  inta  meeting  of  Presbytery.  I 
was  present  at  that  meeting,  and  I  believe  it  was  legally  convened.  The  ob- 
ject of  that  meeting  was  as  stated  in  the  minutes  by  the  moderator.  The 
Presbytery  had  a  legal  right  to  exclude  Messrs.  Goodwillie,  and  Pringle  and 
White,  senior,  from  sitting  on  Dr.  Bullions'  case,  as  stated  on  page  102  of  min- 
utes of  Presbytery.  See  Perdivan,  page  195,  section  9th  ;  I  would  also  refer 
to  page  50  of  the  book  of  discipline,  which  relates  to  the  rejection  of  witness- 
es. My  view  of  the  matter  is  this, — that  malice,  partial  council,  personal  in- 
terest are  relevant  objections  to  witnesses,  and  they  must  be  to  judges.  Also 
see  Gib's  Display,  vol.  1st,  page  27.  No  requisitions  were  put  to  Dr.  Bullions 
at  this  meeting  other  than  the  5th  one.  The  answer  given  in  by  Dr.  B,  Avhich 
will  be  found  on  page  106  of  the  minutes  of  Presbyter}^,  was  not  in  writing, 
but  was  delivered  verbally  by  Dr.  Bullions.  There  was  no  deed  of  Presbyte- 
ry passed  at  this  meeting,  effecting  the  ministerial  standing  of  Dr.  Bullions  ' 
but  he  continued  under  suspension.  The  proceedings  of  this  meeting  of  Pres- 
bytery were  regular;  I  think,  according  to  the  rules  of  discipline  of  the  As- 
sociate Church.  This  meeting  was  adjourned  to  Salem,  the  first  Wednesday 
of  December,  then  next.  I  was  present  at  that  meeting.  The  answers  of 
Dr  Bullions  to  those  requisitions  came  in  at  that  time,  and  are  as  stated  in  the 
minutes  of  Presbytery,  commencing  on  page  109. 

Mr.  Allen  objects  to  this  testimony  on  the  grounds ;  that  jthe  answers  of  Dr, 
B.  to  their  requisitions  were  in  writing,  and  should  be  produced.  The  origin- 
als are  thereupon  produced,  and  on  examination  are  found  to  be  correctly  cop- 
ied in  the  minutes,  commencing  on  page  109,  there  being  in  them  no  answer 
to  the  fifth  requisition. 

The  exclusion  of  Mr.  Stalker  from  sitting  on  the  case  of  Dr.  Bullions  at  the 
meeting  of  Presbytery  in  Salem,  in  December,  1837,  was  regular  according  to 
the  rules  and  discipline  of  the  Associate  Church.  Perdivan,  194th  and  195th 
pages,  section  9th.  The  minutes  of  Presbytery  relative  to  the  proceedings  at 
the  December  meeting  in  Salem,  are  correct.  I  was  present.  The  proceedin'^-s 
of  that  meeting  were  regular,  according  to  the  discipline  and  government  of 
the  Church.  The  minute  relative  to  the  expression  made  by  Mr.  D.  Gordon 
relative  to  Dr.  Bullions,  as  entered  on  page  114  of  the  Book  of  minutes,  I  be- 
lieve to  be  a  true  minute.  When  a  minute  is  made  of  such  expression,  any 
member  has  a  right  afterwards  to  call  it  up  for  action.  The  minute  on  page 
128,  relative  to  taking  up  of  Mr,  Gordon's  case,  is  correct.  This  case  was  ta- 
ken up  and  disposed  of  as  stated  on  the  minutes  of  Presbytery.  See  pa^es 
130,  131  and  132.  Those  proceedings  I  should  judge  were  regular,  aiccording 
to  the  rules  of  proceeding  in  the  Associate  Church.  The  proceedings  on  the 
case  of  Dr.  Bullions,  growing  out  of  the  trial  of  Mr.  D.  Gordon,  are  truly  sta- 
ted on  the  minutes  of  Presbytery,  commencing  on  page  132;  and  those  pro- 
ceedings were  regular.  As  in  one  case  I  appealed  and  in  another  dissented, 
it  might  be  supposed  that  I  did  not  judge  the  proceedings  regular,  but  I  appeal- 
ed and  dissented,  because  I  judged  the  proceedure  was  not  deliberate  enough 
XO  comport  with  public  opinion,  but  that  nevertheless  they  were  strictly  regular, 

The  citation  against  Dr.  Bullions  was  issued  with  certification,  as  ordered 
by  Presbytery.  It  was  legal  in  the  first  instance  to  issue  a  citation  with  certi> 
fication.  See  Book  of  discipline,  page  46,  where  it  is  stated  as  follows:  "In 
case  of  neglect  or  refusal  to  attend,  a  second  citation  may  be  issued,"  &;c.  In 
former  times,  in  the  Church  of  Scotland,  they  positively  required  in  their  books 
of  discipline,  the  several  citations  ordered,  but  their  practice  frequently  con- 
tradicted the  strict  letter  of  this  law;  latterly,  our  books  of  discipline  leave 
the  nuiiaber  of  citations  optional  with  the  court.     See  Perdivan,  form  of  pro» 


no 

eoss,  p.ag^e  209,  sections  4th,  5th  and  Gtli.  Tlie  book  of  Discipline  of  the  Gen- 
eral Assembly  Chur 'h  of  the  United  States  does  not  require  three  citations. 
See  page  40;:i,  of  the  Pliiladelphia  edition  of  1^34 — item  eleven. 

This  last  work  is  counted  in  the  Associate  Church  excellent  authority  in  eve- 
ry case  wherein  it  does  not  contradict  the  standards  of  that  Church.  There 
is  the  less  necessit^-^  for  three  or  even  two  citations,  if  the  Presbytery  have  re- 
ceived a  contemptuous  refusal  to  attenil,  as  was  the  case  in  this  instance.  As 
authority,  see  Perdivan,  pages  188  and  189.  See  also  same  work,  pages  194 
and  195,  relative  to  unwarrantable  declinatures. 

Question  by  Mr.  Fairchild. — What  is  the  paper  mentioned  on  page  116  of 
the  minutes  of  Presbytery  of  CamhriJgc,  as  paper  No.  one  from  Dr.  Bullions? 
Answer — This  paper  is  the  first  declinature  of  Dr.  Bullions. 
Complainants  produce  a  copy  of  this  paper  which  is  hereto  annexed  and 
marked  as  Exhibit  M,  on  part  of  Complainants.  The  original  declinature  de- 
livered in  to  Presbytery  by  Dr.  Bullions  is  now  on  file  with  the  clerk  of  the 
Synod,  Mr.  Andrew  Herron,  of  Green  county,  Ohio.  It  is  usual  and  the  clerk 
must  always  keep  original  papers  that  appear  in  trials  in  Synod,  unless  express- 
ly ordered  by  Synod  to  give  them  up. 

This  declinature  was  an  unlawful  one,  because  it  was  a  renunciation  of  the 
authority  of  Presbytery  over  him,  and  a  contemptuous  denial  of  their  right 
constitution.  Perdivan,  page  194,  section  9th.  It  is  unjustifiable  to  put  in  aa 
unwarrantable  declinature.  It  is  an  offence  against  his  ordination  vows,  and 
persisted  in,  is  a  disruption  of  all  church  fellowship.  The  censure  merited  by 
an  officer  of  the  Church  for  an  unwarrantable  declinature,  is  deposition.  Per- 
divan, page  194,  section  9th.  Dr.  Bullions  was  notified  to  attend  the  trial  of 
Mr.  D.  Gordon  for  his  supposed  slanderous  assertions ;  but  he  did  not  attend. 
The  citation  ordered  on  page  133  of  the  minutes  of  Presbytery,  was  issued 
and  served  on  Dr.  Bullions,  as  there  directed.  That  citation  was  returnable  at 
the  next  meeting  of  Presbytery,  held  April  10th,  1838,  and  was  acknowledged 
by  Dr.  Bullions  to  have  been  served;  in  the  second  declinature,  contained  in 
a  paper  produced,  which  is  marked  as  Exhibit  N,  on  part  of  Complainants, 
winch  is  the  same  paper  referred  to  on  page  136  of  the  minutes  of  Presbyte- 
ry", as  No.  one  from  Dr.  Bullions.  After  this  declinature  was  handed  in  by 
Dr.  Bullions,  another  citation  was  ordered  to  be  issued  to  him.  It  was  issued 
on  the  10th  of  April,  1838,  returnable  on  the  12th  day  of  April,  then  next. 
The  meeting  of  Presbytery  commenced  on  the  J 0th  day  of  April,  in  the  year 
1838,  and  was  continued  from  day  to  day  till  the  12th.  This  last  citation  was 
issued  with  certification.  This  citation  was  returned  as  duly  served.  The 
paper  itself  was  not  handed  back;  what  I  mean  by  being  returned,  is  the  evi- 
dence that  it  was  served.  It  is  not  usual  to  keep  such  papers  or  copies  of 
them. 

In  former  times  it  was  usual  for  the  court  to  keep  a  copy  of  the  citation,  but 
lately  it  has  not  been  done.  This  citation  was  regular  according  to  the  gov- 
ernment and  discipline  of  the  Church.  The  court  had  a  right  on  the  return 
of  this  last  citation  to  proceed  and  try  the  case.  The  Presbytery  was  legally 
constituted,  and  regularly  convened  at  this  time,  as  appears  by  the  minutes. 
I  was  not  present  on  the  11th  and  12th,  but  was  on  the  10th  of  April,  at  the 
time  the  meeting  commenced.  This  was  the  meeting  at  Avhich  Dr.  Bullions 
was  deposed.  The  deposition  was  made  on  the  12th  day  of  April,  1838,  at 
South  Argyle.  Dr.  Bullions  was  not  present  on  the  12th  day  of  April,  nor  on 
any.  of  the  days  of  the  meeting  of  Presbytery,  commencing  on  the  10th  of 
April.  It  appears  by  the  minutes  that  Presbytery  proceeded  with  the  trial  as 
Ihough  Dr.  Bullions  was  present.     The  Presbytery  had  a  right  so  to  proceed, 


Ill 

See  Perdivan,  page  160,  section  22nd  ;  also  page  209,  sections  4lh,  5th  and 
6th.  See  also  book  of  Discipline,  page  46.  The  proceedings  in  the  case  of 
Dr.  Bullions,  and  in  deposing  him,  were  regular  according  to  the  government 
and  discipline  of  the  church.  The  grounds  of  the  deposition  of  Dr.  Bullions, 
are  truly  enumerated  on  pages  MS,  149  and  150  of  the  minutes  of  Presby- 
tery. It  appears  by  the  minutes  of  Presbytery,  that  these  charges  were  all 
-proved  against  Dr.  Bullions,  they  are  safiicient  to  warrant  the  sentence  im- 
posed upon  him  according  to  the  books  of  discipline  of  the  Associate  Church. 
Dr.  Bullions  was  deposed  and  excommunicated,  as  stated  in  the  minutes.  The 
minutes  expressly  state  it  as  the  lesser  sentence  of  excommunication.  The 
deposition  and  excommunication  were  regular,  as  the  Presbytery  was  duly  con- 
vened according  to  appointment,  rightly  constituted,  a  full  quorum,  the  cau- 
ses for  deposition  and  excommunication  abundantly  sufficient,  sufficiently  pro- 
ven. Dr.  Bullions  having  had  full  opportunity  of  defence,  and  having  had  suf- 
ficient legal  notification  and  certification. 

Question  by  Mr.  Fairchild — Was  it  regular  to  proceed  to  the  trial  of  Dr. 
Bullions  on  the  return  of  the  two  day  citation  mentioned. 

Answer — The  design  of  such  time  given  as  the  books  of  discipline  usually 
require,  for  parties  to  appear  after  citation,  is,  that  they  may  have  reasonable 
time,  and  therefore  less  than  ten  days  is  often  sufficient.  See  Perdivan,  page 
208.  It  was  substantially  complying  with  the  rule  in  the  case  of  Dr.  Bullions. 
He  was  convenient,  so  that  he  got  the  notice  in  time.  But  for  other  reasons, 
delay  was  not  demanded,  as  where  the  party  cited  has  returned  an  absolute  re- 
fusal to  attend,  with  contemptuous  renunciation  of  the  authority  of  the  court, 
as  was  the  case  in  this  instance. 

Mr.  Allen  objects  to  the  same  answer  being  repeated  ;  that  this  answer  is  a 
repetition  of  a  former  one. 

The  authority  for  the  last  answer  will  be  found  in  Perdivan,  page  188,  sec- 
tion twelfth. 

Question  by  Mr.  Fairchild — Was  it  irregular  to  proceed  and  pass  the  sen- 
tence stated  on  pages  148,  149,  150  and  151  of  the  minutes  of  Presbytery, 
being  the  lesser  sentence  of  excommunication,  when  the  lesser  sentence  of 
excommunication  had  previously  be'en  imposed,  as  appears  on  the  minutes  re- 
cording the  suspension  of  Dr.  Bullions? 

Answer — It  was  not  irregular,  because  the  deposition  had  become  necessa- 
ry, and  it  was  proper  to  express  the  continuance  of  the  lesser  sentence  of  ex- 
coTimunication,  as  always  accompanying  deposition.  Deposition  always  in- 
cludes suspension,  or  rather  is  accompanied  with  it.  Suspension  from  Church 
privileges  after  trial,  is  the  same  as  the  lesser  sentence  of  excommunication- 
A  suspension  from  Church  privileges  before  trial  is  not  a  censure, but  propriety 
requires  that  the  person  undercharge  be  kept  back  from  sealing  ordinances  till 
his  case  is  issued  or  judgment  rendered. 

Question  by  Mr.  Fairchild — When  a  person  is  excommunicated  with  the 
lesser  sentence  of  excommunication,  does  he  still  retain  any  connexion  with 
the  Church,  and  does  the  Church  still  retain  any  authority  over  him? 

Answer — The  Church  retains  a  full  authority  over  him  and  he  is  still  a  mem- 
ber of  the  Church. 

Question  by  Mr.  Fairchild — Do  the  Church  sustain  any  ecclesiastical  relation 
to  the  person  under  the  greater  sentence  of  Excommunication  ? 

Answer — ^^The  Church  does  not,  although  relation  to  him  is  different  from 
that  which  they  sustain  to  the  rest  of  the  world.  The  rest  of  the  world,  lies 
under  no  definite  sentence  against  them  personally  while  the  person  excommu- 
nicated does.     He  cannot  become  a  member  again  without  formal  absolution 


112 

by  a  court  of  Christ  that  lias  authority  to  do  it,  and  that  court  must  be  the  snma 
that  excommunicated  him.  As  authority  for  the  answer  as  to  the  cflecl  of  th« 
lesser  sentence,  see  part  third,  article  third,  Section  first  of  the  Declaration 
and  testimony  on  page  115.  As  authority  for  the  answer  as  to  the  eflect  of 
the  greater  sentence  of  excommunication  I  would  refer  to  the  Book  of  Disci- 
pline page  57  at  top.  Also  collections  by  Stewart  of  Perdivan,  page  200.  Also 
see  Perdivan,  page  192  section  21st.  At  the  meeting  of  Presbytery  when  Dr. 
Bullions  was  deposed  no  member  was  excluded  from  voting  on  his  case  to  my 
knowledge,  nor  does  it  appear  by  the  minutes  of  Presbytery  that  any  member 
was  so  excluded.  By  the  minutes  see  page  148,  the  resolution  deposing  him  was 
unanimously  adopted.  The  case  of  Dr.  Bullions  was  brought  before  Synod  at 
the  meeting  held  in  Philadelphia  in  May,  1838,  by  a  memorial  by  Dr.  Bullions 
and  taken  up  by  Synod  on  consent  of  the  Presbytery  of  Cambridge;  for  which 
I  refer  to  pages  22  and  26  of  Exhibit  B,  on  part  of  Complainants^  Synod  had 
jurisdiction  over  the  case  and  a  right  to  take  it  up  under  those  circumstances. 
For  authority  See  Book  of  Discipline  page  12lh.  I  was  present  at  this  meet- 
ting  of  Synod  when  the  case  was  taken  up  and  disposed  of.  This  Synod  was 
duly  convened  according  to  adjournment,  and  was  legally  constituted.  Dr.  Bul- 
lions was  present  at  this  meeting  of  Synod.  The  case  of  Dr.  Bullions  was 
fully  and  fairly  submitted  to  Synod.  As  fully  as  he  wished  to  have  it. 
Question  by  Mr.  Fairchild — Did  he  conduct  the  case  in  person? 
Answer — He  did  so  conduct  it  on  his  part. 

Question  by  Mr.  Fairchild — Did  he  make  an  argument  at  the  close  of  the 
evidence  ? 

This  question  is  objected  to  because  the  minutes  of  Synod  will  best  show 
the  whole  proceedings  before  them.  Objection  over-ruled  and  evidence  re- 
ceived. 

Answer — He  did  make  such  argument,  and  making  but  few  remarks  he  sat 
down.  Some  members  of  Synod  observed  that  it  was  Dr.  Bullions's  last  op- 
portunity to  be  heard  on  the  case,  and  if  he  had  any  thing  further  to  advance, 
to  do  it  now.  He  then  arose  and  continued  his  defence  until  he  ceased  of  his 
OAvn  accord.  Mr.  Allen  objects  to  all  that  part  of  the  answer  after  the  affir- 
mative, as  irresponsive  to  the  question,  and  insists  that  a  farther  remark  made 
by  the  witness  in  answer  to  that  question  that  the  reason  he  made  the  answer 
was  to  shew  that  Dr.  Bullions  had  full  liberty  on  the  trial  of  the  appeal  before 
Synod,  be  also  taken  down.  Mr.  Fairchild  answers  that  the  above  is  not  a 
correct  statement ;  that  the  facts  are  that,  after  the  witness  answered^  that 
Dr.  Bullions  did  make  an  agreement,  the  witness  commenced  saying  some- 
thing further,  and  Mr.  Fairchild  stopped  him,  and  then  stated  that  he  tvould 
hear  the  witness  in  conversation,  but  would  not  take  it  as  testimony.  The 
witness  then  stated  the  fact  that  Dr.  Bullions,  after  making  a  few  remarks, 
sat  down,  and  on  being  apprised  that  it  was  his  last  opportunity  for  speaking 
in  defence,  he  arose  and  continued  his  argument.  Witness  said,  I  mention 
this  to  shew  that  Dr.  Bullions  was  allowed  full  liberty  of  speaking  in  defence, 
then  Mr.  Fairchild  asked  him  further  questions  ;  the  answers  to  be  taken  down 
as  testimony,  and  in  answer  to  those  questions,  the  testimony  stated  above 
Mr.  Allen's  objection  vt'as  given.  Mr.  Fairchild  adds  that  in  the  conversation 
with  the  witness,  the  Avitness  stated  that  he  considered  the  matter  stated  in 
the  conversation  was  necessary  in  answer  to  the  question.  The  Examiner  de- 
cides that  he  considered  the  matter  of  the  witness'  answer  which  was  not  affir- 
mative to  the  question,  as  having  been  given  originally  in  conversation,  as 
stated  by  Mr.  Fairchild,  and  that  it  was  afterwards  taken  down  in  answer  to 
questions  orally  by  Mr.  Fairchild,  and  therefore  decides  that  the  remark  of  the 


113 

witness  can  not  be  taken  down  as  testimony.  The  witness  then  further  testi- 
fied that  Synod  had  the  right  to  determine  the  correctness  or  incorrectness  of 
the  deed  of  Presbytery  deposing  and  excommunicating  Dr.  Bullions.  The 
minutes  state,  see  page  30  of  Exhibit  B,  on  part  of  Complainants.  "  The 
question  was  put,  affirm  the  decision  of  the  Presbytery  of  Cambridge,  or  not, 
and  carried, — affirm  !"  This  decision  was  final  in  Dr.  Bullions's  case. — 
The  decisions  of  the  Supreme  Court  are  properly  final.  See  Perdivan,  page 
192,  section  21st.  One  of  the  majority  only  could  move  for  a  re-consideration 
of  any  decision  made.  It  appears  by  the  minutes  that  a  protest  against  the 
decision  was  made  by  Dr.  Bullions,  The  protest  was  then  offered  verbally.— 
It  was  afterwards  handed  in,  in  writing,  but  it  did  not  appear  to  my  knowledge 
at  that  meeting  of  Synod.  I  find  however  on  examining  the  minutes  of  Synod 
that  it  was  given  in,  in  Avriting,  at  that  meeting.  The  effect  of  a  protest  a- 
gainst  the  decision  of  the  court  of  last  resort  is  for  the  exoneration  of  con- 
science. It  is  common  with  the  Associate  Church  to  admit  such  protest.  See 
book  of  discipline  page  62,  near  the  foot  of  the  page.  Such  protest  neither 
invalidates  nor  suspends  the  decision.  See  Perdivan,  page  195,  section  llth. 
See  also  a  decision  of  the  Associate  Synod  of  North  America,  on  printed  mi- 
nutes of  1832,  page  30th,  at  the  bottom  of  the  page.  By  the  minutes  it  ap- 
pears that  the  following  resolution  was  offered  and  adopted. 

"  Resolved,  That  it  is  the  judgment  of  this  Synod  that  protests  are  ad- 
missible in  an  ecclesiastical  court  of  the  last  resort,  but  do  not  shield  the  pro- 
testers in  disobedience." 

Question  by  Mr.  Fairchild — You  have  said  that  Dr.  Bullions's  protest  was 
handed  in,  in  writing,  at  the  meeting  of  Synod,  in  May,  1838.  Is  it  in  the 
printed  minutes  of  that  year  ? 

Answer — It  is  not,  but  will  be  found  in  the  printed  minutes  of  1839,  and  on 
page  23rd  of  Exhibit  A,  on  part  of  Complainants. 

Question  by  Mr.  Fairchild — Is  that  paper  a  simple  protest,  or  any  thing 
more,  and  if  more  what  is  it  ?  Question  objected  to  as  calling  for  the  opinion 
of  the  witness  as  to  a  paper  which  speaks  for  itself.  Objection  over-ruled 
and  evidence  received. 

Answer — It  is  more  than  a  simple  protest,  including  a  declinature  of  the 
authority  of  Synod  ;  referring  to  the  latter  part  of  the  paper  I  find  the  decli- 
nature. As  authority  see  Perdivan,  page  194,  section  9th  ;  this  proves  it  to 
be  an  unwarrantable  declinature.  I  consider  this  an  unlawful  declinature. — 
All  declinatures,  legally  speaking,  of  the  court  of  last  resort,  are  unlawful. — 
I  refer  for  authority  to  the  decision  of  Synod  of  1832,  page  30th. 

Question  by  Mr.  Fairchild — Can  any  Supreme  Court  agreeably  to  the  form 
of  Presbyterian  Church  government  ask  less  than  a  present  submission  to  their 
decisions  ? 

Answer — They  cannot  lawfully.  My  authority  for  this  answer  is  contained 
in  the  formula  of  questions  at  the  ordination  of  ministers.  Question  6th,  See 
Declaration  and  Testimony,  page  126,  Section  5th  of  Article  8th.  See  also 
confession  of  faith,  page  166  of  Exhibit  G,  on  part  of  Complainants,  section 
second.     Also  Book  of  discipline  page  6th  near  the  middle  of  the  page. 

Question  by  Mr.  Fairchild — Is  there  any  rule  in  the  Associate  Church  al- 
lowing an  individual  to  be  judge  in  his  own  case  in  opposition  to  the  judgment 
of  the  court  ? 

Answer — It  is  the  principle  of  the  Associate  Church  that  every  man  has   a 

right  to  judge  for  himself  on  matters  of  truth  and  duty  so   far  as  to  form  his 

opinion  of  what  he  ought  to  do,  but  has  no  right  to  judge  so  as  to  annul   the 

decision  of  the  courts  that  are  over  him  in  the  Lord,  nor  on  his  judgment  to 

15 


114 

impose  himself  upon  tlic  fellowships  of  others  in  opposition  to  the  judgment  of 
the  court.  With  respect  to  his  right  to  judge  for  himself,  for  aulliority  see 
declaration  and  testimony  page  12G,  section  5th  of  article  8th.  As  to  the  lat- 
ter part  of  my  answer  for  authority,  see  Book  of  discipline  page  6th.  Also 
confession  of  faith  page  l(i(),  section  second.  Sec  Exhibit  G,  page  16G.  The 
general  principles  of  the  Church  under  the  Presbyterian  profession  maintain 
the  same  thing.  It  appears  by  page  ril  of  the  minutes  of  ISynod  for  1838  that 
Dr.  Bullions  was  at  the  meeting  of  that  year,  referred  to  the  Presbytery  of 
Cambridge  for  further  dealing.  This  reference  of  Dr.  Bullions  was  legal.  As 
authority  for  this  answer  I  refer  to  Book  of  discipline  page  56  ;•  see  also  Perdi- 
van,  page  56,  section  33;    see  also  page  192  of  same  work,  section  2l9(.- 

Question  by  Mr.  Fairchild. — Being  remitted  to  the  Presbytery  of  Cambridge 
for  further  dealing  as  stated  in  the  minutes,  could  Dr.  Bullions  make  submis- 
sion and  be  legally  restored  by  applying  to  any  other  Presbytery. 

Answer — He  could  not.  See  authorities  last  referred  to.  See  also  Book  of 
discipline,  pages  6th,  7th  and  lOlh.  The  Presbytery  of  Vermont  had  no  right 
to  receive  Dr.  Bullions,  or  attempt  his  restoration,  or  deal  with  him  in  any  way 
in  an  ecclesiastical  manner.  Same  authorities  as  for  last  answer  with  this  ad- 
dition that  there  is  need  of  a  positive  authority  to  justify  the  proceedure  of  the 
Presbytery,  that  there  is  no  authority  in  the  standards  of  the  Associate  Church 
for  this  deed.  I  would  explain  my  testimony  heretofore  given  by  saying  that 
there  were  three  citations  given  to  Dr.  Bullions  to  attend  for  trial. 

A.  ANDERSON. 

Sworn,  examined,  and  subscrib-  ) 
ed  this  13th  day  of  November,  > 
in  the   year  1S41,  before  me,       ) 

JAMES  GIBSON,   Examiner  in  C/tanccnj. 


IN    CHANCERY. 

Before  the  Chancellok. 


William  Steveivson,  cf  a/.  )  t-t    .t„„    r-.    ,  ■     ,■         r 

'  (  b  arther  direct   examination  ol 

,  \^'  ,    7  (  A.  Anderson. 

Alexander  Bullions,  cfflf.  ) 


Abraham  Anderson,  a  witness  already  examined,  on  the  part  of  the  Com- 
plainants, is  now  produced  and  farther  examined  by  Mr.  Orville  Clark,  of  coun- 
sel for  said  Complainants,  and  thereupon  testifies  as  foflo^vs,  viz: 

The  binding  effect  of  a  decree  of  Synod  or  Presbytery  does  Hot  depend  mi 
the  conscience  or  belief  of  the  person  judged. 

Question  by  Mr.  Clark — Are  they  not  equally  bound  by  the  decision  or  de- 
cree, so  far  as  their  relation  to  the  church  is  concerned,  whether  they  believe 
the  decision  to  be  right  or  wrong  ? 

Answer — They  are  equally  bound.  The  term  "  Congregation,"  so  far  as 
the  Associate  Church  is  concerned,  includes  those  that  are  in  full  communion 
in  the  church,  with  their  children,  of  any  age,  under  charge  of  their  parents. 
In  a  church  point  of  view  the  term  "  Congregation"  does  not  include  families 
and  casual  or  stated  hearers  not  in  communion  with  the  church. 

Question  by  Mr.  Clark — Can  a  person  who  has  been  suspended  or  deposed, 
continue  to  officiate  by  merely  appealing  from  the  decision  in  all  cases  ?  Ob- 
jected to  by  Mr.  Allen,  as  going  over  testimony  which  the  witness  has  already 
been  examined  to.     Objection  over-ruled  and  evidence  received, 

Answer-r— It  can  not  in  any  case  in  the  same  church, 


115 

Question  by  Mr.  Clark — Is  the  person  accused,  in  any  case  to  be  the  judge, 
whether  the  decision  of  the  Presbytery  or  Synod  is  in  accordance  with  the 
word  of  God,  and  the  rules  and  principles  of  the  church,  so  as  to  eftect  the 
decision  in  his  relation  to  the  church  ?  Objected  to  same  as  the  last  question. 
Objection  over-ruled  and  evidence  received. 

Answer — He  is  not.  If  this  should  mean,  that  he  is  not  at  liberty  to  jud"e 
for  himself  and  leave  the  church,  I  Avould  say  he  is. 

Question  by  Mr.  Clark — Are  there  any  cases  in  which  the  decisions  of  Syn- 
od are  not  final,  because  in  the  opinion  of  the  accused,  they  are  not  in  accor- 
dance with  the  rules  of  the  church,  and  the  word  of  God.  Objected  to  same 
as  before  ;  and  in  like  manner  over-ruled. 

Answer — There  are  none. 

Question  by  Mr.  Clark — Upon  a  final  decree  of  Synod,  has  the  accused  a 
right  to  protest  and  to  claim  a  re-hearing  or  review?  Objected  to  for  same 
reason,  and  in  like  manner  received  by  the  examiner. 

Answer — If  by  claim  you  understand  a  right,  he  has  not. 

Question  by  Mr.  Clark. — Is  there  any  supposable  case  in  the  knowledge  of  the 
witness  where,  upon  a  final  decision  of  Synod  deposing  a  minister,  by  protest- 
ing and  asking  a  review,  that  he  may  continue  to  officiate  until  the  decision  is 
reviewed  and  reversed  ?  Objected  to  for  same  reason  as  before,  and  in  like 
manner  received  by  the  examiner. 

Answer — Not  in  the  same  church. 

Question  by  Mr.  Clark — Do  these  words  in  the  ordination  vow — "  Kemem- 
bering  that  while  they  act  uprightly  they  judge  not  for  men,  but  for  the  Lord, 
who  is  also  with  them  in  the  judgment" — give  any  greater  latitude  to  the  ac- 
cused, as  to  his  duty  to  submit  to  the  decisions  of  the  court  according  to  the 
principles  of  the  church,  then  if  they  were  not  in  ? 

Answer — They  do  not.  Those  words  I  think  do  not  at  all  effect  his  duty  to 
submit. 

Question  by  Mr.  Clark— If  a  majority  of  a  congregation  believe  that  their 
ttlinister  has  been  unjustly  deposed  and  excommunicated,  may  they  employ  him 
as  their  minister,  and  he  officiate,  and  by  so  doing,  both  retain  their  connexion 
with  the  church.  Objected  to  by  Mr.  Allen  on  same  grounds  as  before,  and 
the  objection  over-ruled,  and  evidence  received. 

Answer — They  may  not.  A  member  of  the  Associate  Church  can  not  ac- 
cording to  the  rules  of  the  church,  attend  the  ministrations  of  a  man  who  is 
suspended  or  excommunicated,  without  a  violation  of  his  vows. 

Question  by  Mr.  Clark. — Can  the  Presbytery  or  Synod  send  a  Minister  to 
officiate  with  the  Congregation  without  their  consent  under  any  circumstances, 
and  if  so,  when  ?  Question  objected  to  as  having  been  previously  asked  of 
this  witness.     The  objection  over'ruled  and  the  evidence  received. 

Answer — They  can  do  so  when  a  Congregation  is  vacant,  or  when  they 
would  declare  a  Congregation  vacant,  or  when  they  would  rectify  disorders 
which  have  arisen  in  it.  In  such  cases  they  have  the  right  so  to  send  a  min- 
ister. 

Question  by  Mr.  Clark— Is  the  matter  contained  in  the  extract  from  the  min- 
utes of  the  Presbytery,  as  set  forth  in  folio  57,  58  and  59  of  the  Defendant's 
answer  to  the  original  bill,  the  only  matters  for  which  Dr.  Bullions  was  depos- 
ed. The  question  objected  to  on  the  ground  of  its  immateriality  and  irrele- 
vancy a»d  no  foundation  for  it  in  the  bill  and  that  the  witness  has  previously 
testified  on  this  subject.     Objection  over-ruled  and  evidence  received. 

Answer — It  is  not.  The  causes  for  which  he  was  deposed  are  contained  on 
the  30th  and  31st  pages  of  a  pamphlet  entitled  "A  narrative  of  the  proceed- 


IIG 

ings  of  the  Associate  Preshytcry  of  Canibiidjre,  which  issued  in  the  deposi- 
tion of  Rev.  D.  Stalker  and  Kev.  A,  Bullions  D.  D.,  Albany  Ed.  Printed 
by  Hoflman  and  White,  183S,"  which  is  offered  by  complainants  to  be  mark- 
ed as  Exhibit  O,  on  their  part.  This  Exhibit  is  objected  to  by  Mr.  Allen,  on 
the  grounds  that  it  is  irrelevant  and  improper  evidence  and  is  an  exparte  state- 
ment made  by  a  committee  of  Presbytery  after  the  trial  of  Dr.  Bullions  to  jus- 
tify their  own  proceedings  and  as  a  defence  of  those  proceedings,  and  because 
the  minutes  themselves  to  which  reference  is  made  in  that  pamphlet  can  be 
extracted  and  made  an  Exhibit  of.  The  objection  made  by  Mr.  Allen  is 
over-ruled  by  the  examiner  and  the  Exhibit  marked  as  above. 

Question  by  Mr.  Clark — Is  that  Book  a  correct  history  of  the  transactions 
referred  to  in  it  relative  to  Dr.  Bullions,  and  the  transactions  connected  with  his 
trial  and  deposition?  Question  objected  to  as  irrelevant  and  immaterial. 
Objection  over-ruled  and  evidence  received. 

Answer — It  is  a  true  exhibition  of  the  documents  in  the  case  so  far  as  it 
purports  to  be.  The  declinature  given  in  by  Dr.  Bullions  on  the  7th,  February, 
1838,  did  not  remove  the  cause  from  the  Presbytery  to  the  Synod,  nor  did  it 
remove  the  proceedings  at  all.  Dr.  Bullions  was  by  order  of  the  Presbytery, 
February  Sth,  1838,  notified,  or  cited  to  appear  before  them,  March  7th,  fol- 
lowing. Dr.  Bullions  did  not  appear  and  answer  to  that  citation.  March  Sth, 
Dr.  Bullions  was  again  ordered  by  Presbytery  to  be  cited  to  appear  on  the 
tenth  day  of  April  following,  and  he  was  cited  in  pursuance  of  the  order. 

Question  by  Mr.  Clark.  Did  Dr.  Bullions  appear  on  the  10th  day  of  April, 
in  pursuance  of  that  citation  ?  Objected  by  Mr.  Allen  that  the  attention  of 
this  witness  has  been  twice  drawn  to  this  subject  already.  The  objection  is 
over-ruled  by  the  Examiner,  and  the  evidence  received. 

Answer — Dr.  Bullions  did  not  appear  in  pursuance  of  that  citation,  but  sent 
in  a  second  declinature.  He  was  then  again  cited  to  appear  on  the  12th  day 
of  April,  which  citation  was  Avith  certification,  as  was  also  the  citation  issued 
on  the  Sth  day  of  March.  The  Presbytery  met  in  April,  1838,  at  South  Ar- 
gyle,  which  is  about  twelve  miles  from  the  residence  of  Dr.  Bullions,  Mr, 
Allen  objects  to  this  testimony  as  not  being  the  best  evidence,  and  that  the 
rainutes  should  be  produced.  The  witness  then  testifies  that  the  minutes  are 
before  him  now,  and  he  testifies  from  them. 

Question  by  Mr.  Clark — Is  it  correct  that  Dr.  Bullions  was  not  deposed  for 
any  error  in  practice?  Objected  to  as  not  in  the  bill  of  complaint,  and  the  at- 
tention of  the  witness  has  been  called  to  it  before.  Objection  over-ruled  and 
evidence  received  by  the  Examiner. 

Answer — It  is  not  correct.  I  know  who  are  complainants  and  who  Defend- 
ants in  this  suit,  and  I  know  the  distinction  between  the  two  classes.  Since 
the  deposition  of  Dr.  Bullions  the  Presbytery  have  recognized  the  Complain- 
ants and  their  adherents,  members  of  the  church,  as  the  Associate  Congrega- 
tion of  Cambridcre.     I  think  this  was  done  in  June,  in  the  year  1838. 

Question  by  Mr.  Clark — Have  the  ruling  elders  who  adhere  to  Dr.  Bullions 
been  excommunicated  by  the  Session,  Question  objected  to  because  there  is 
no  foundation  for  it  in  the  bill  of  complaint,  and  no  allegation  therein  on  that 
subject,  and  that  it  is  irrelevant  and  immaterial.  Objection  over-ruled  and 
the  evidence  received  by  the  Examiner. 

Answer — They  were  so  excommunicated  on  the  31st  day  of  December,  in 
the  year  1838,  and  suspended  from  the  exercise  of  their  office,  which  appears 
by  the  minutes  of  session,  Avhich  are  produced  before  the  examiner,  and  a 
copy  of  Avhich  is  produced  and  marked  as  Exhibit  P,  on  part  of  Complainants, 
The  session,  which  deposed  the  ruling  elders,  proceeded  according  to  the  rulea 


117 

of  the  course  and  practice  of  the  Associate  Church.  This  session  is  recog;n!z- 
ed  by  the  Presbytery  of  Cambridge,  as  the  only  true  session  of  the  Associate 
Congregation  of  Cambridge.  That  session  carefully  took  the  necessary  steps 
in  excommunicating  those  ruling  elders,  according  to  the  course  and  practice 
of  the  Associate  Church. 

Question  by  Mr.  (lark — Was  this  a  matter  within  the  jurisdiction  of  that 
session  ?  Question  objected  to  by  Mr.  Allen,  on  the  following  grounds,  viz  : 
as  irrelevant  and  immaterial,  and  not  within  the  issue.  The  objection  over- 
ruled by  the  examiner  and  the  evidence  received. 

Answer — This  was  a  matter  within  the  jurisdiction  of  that  session.  It  was 
judged  necessary  according  to  the  rules  of  the  Associate  Church,  that  those 
who  were  formerly  elders,  but  were  now  insubordinate  to  their  church  courts, 
and  supporting  a  schism,  should  be  suspended,  if  after  dealing  with  them 
they  were  found  impenitent.  It  is  the  imperious  duty  of  a  session  in  the  As- 
sociate Church  to  deal  with  any  of  their  members  that  are  violating  the  laws 
or  rules  of  the  church,  or  who  are  insubordinate  to  the  church  courts,  and  to 
censure  them  accordingly.  This  duty  also  extends  to  members  of  the  congre- 
gation, as  well  as  members  of  the  session.  The  Associate  Session  of  Cam- 
bridge, as  recognized  by  Presbytery,  as  before  stated,  have  been  regularly  re- 
cognized by  Synod,  by  admission  of  its  members  to  a  seat  in  that  court  ;  and 
adhering  to  Dr.  Bullions,  have  been  refused  by  Synod  to  be  recognized  as  the 
session  or  congregation  of  Cambridge.  The  former  members  of  the  Associate 
Congregation  of  Cambridge,  adhering  to  Dr.  Bullions,  are  not  members  in  full 
communion  with  the  Associate  Church,  nor  are  recognized  as  such  by  any  of 
her  judicatories. 

Question  by  Mr.  Clark — Is  the  course  pursued  by  Dr.  Bullions  and  his  adhe- 
rents, one  that  is  repudiating  the  Presbyterian  form  of  government  ?  The  ques- 
tion objected  to  by  Mr.  Allen  of  counsel  for  defendants  on  the  following  grounds, 
viz: — Because  it  is  asking  for  the  opinion  of  the  witness  in  a  question  of  fact 
and  is  not  giving  the  facts  for  the  court  to  judge  of  the  law.  The  objection  is 
over-ruled  bv  the  examiner  and  the  evidence  received. 

Answer — It  is  repudiating  that  form  of  Church  government. 

Question  by  Mr.  Clark  of  counsel  for  complainants. — Have  the  Synod  called 
the  Presbytery  of  Vermont  to  account  for  dealing  with  Dr.  Bullions  and  at- 
tempting to  restore  him  after  the  Synod  had  referred  him  back  to  the  Presby- 
tery of  Cambridge?  Mr.  Allen  of  counsel  for  defendants  objects  to  this  ques- 
tion on  the  following  grounds,  viz.  Because  it  is  irrelevant  and  immaterial  and 
calling  for  matters  which  have  taken  place  since  the  commencement  of  this 
suit.     The  examiner  over-rules  the  objection  and  receives  the  testimony. 

Answer — The  Synod  did  so  call  the  Presbytery  of  Vermont  to  account.  In 
the  year  1839,  the  Synod  ordered  that  the  members  of  that  Presbytery  appear 
at  the  bar  of  the  Synod  at  its  next  meeting  to  answer  for  their  conduct  in  this 
case.  At  the  next  meeting  of  Synod  they  were  called  to  account  accordingly. 
Ultimately  a  commission  was  appointed  to  go  to  Barnet,  with  instructions  ;  and 
according  to  those  instructions  the  commission  declared,  that  Presbytery  dis- 
solved, and  the  ministerial  members  of  it,  suspended  from  their  office,  and  from 
the  communion  of  the  church,  and  referred  them  to  the  Presbytery  of  Cam- 
bridge for  further  dealing  ;  and  their  congregation  to  the  care  of  the  latter 
Presbytery.  The  ministerial  members  of  that  Presbytery,  were  Messrs.  Thom- 
as Goodwillie  and  William  Pringle.  The  Synod,  in  the  year  1839,  (see  page 
29  of  the  minutes  of  Synod  of  that  year,)  declared  the  deeds  of  the  Associate 
Presbytery  of  Vt.  restoring  Dr.  A.  Bullions  to  the  office  of  the  ministry,  and 
the  communion  of  the  church,  and  admitting  him  as  a  member  of  that  Pres- 


118 

bytory,  fo  ^'f  null  :nid  void  iVom  the  bcfiiimiiip;.  l*'ur  tJic  procef ding's  of  Sy- 
nod, and  the  (.•()n»nii>tiun  ordered  by  Synod,  see  tlie  minutes  of  Synod  f(.r  1^39, 
and  of  1840.  Mr.  Allen,  of  counsel  for  Defendants  objects  to  the  whole  of  this 
last  answer  of  the  witness  as  being  improper  evidence — it  beinjr  parole  evi- 
dence of  tliat  which  is  best  proved  by  the  minutesof  Synod.  The  examiner 
over-rules  the  objection  and  receives  the  testimony. 

Question  by  Mr.  Clark— At  the  meeting  of  the  Presbytery  of  Cambridge  in 
October,  1837,  hud  Dr.  bullions  an  opportunity  of  being  heard,  and  of  defen- 
ding himself?  Mr.  Allen  of  counsel  for  Defendants,  objects  to  tlie  question 
on  the  following  groinids,  viz  :  because  the  minutes  of  Presbytery  shew  what 
took  place  at  that  meeting,  and  are  the  best  evidence  of  what  did  take  place, 
and  parole  evidence  caiinot  be  given  thereof.  The  objection  is  over-ruled  by 
the  examiner,  and  the  evidence  received. 

Answer — Dr.  Bullions  liad,  according  to  my  knowledge  of  the  matter,  full 
opportunity  of  being  heard,  and  of  defending  himself.  I  was  present  a  part 
of  the  time  during  that  meeting  of  Presbytery.  I  M'as  present  when  he  was 
suspended,  and  when  the  rebidce  was  proposed  to  be  inflicted.  The  silence 
was  removed  before  the  rebuke  was  proposed  to  be  inflicted,  and  before  he 
was  suspended. 

Question  by  Mr.  Clark — Have  the  Presbytery  of  Cambridge  frecjucntly  had 
occasion  to  deal  with  Dr.  Bullions  previous  to  October,  in  the  year  1837,  am\ 
if  so,  what  dealings,  and  when  were  they  ?  This  question  is  objected  to  by  Mr. 
Allen,  of  counsel  for  Defendants,  on  the  following  grounds :  because  it  is  ir- 
relevant and  immaterial,  no  charge  or  foundation  for  it  in  the  bill,  and  that  if 
there  is  any,  parole  evidence  thereof  objected  to.  The  objection  is  over-ruled 
by  the  examiner,  and  the  evidence  received. 

Answer — They  had.  In  1830,  tlie  Presbytery  of  Cambridge  had  a  charge 
against  Dr.  Bullions  of  falsehood,  and  language  inconsistent  with  his  profes- 
sion, and  he  was  rebuked  in  Synod  the  same  year  for  ofiensive  language,  re- 
ferred to  in  these  charges.  In  1832,  he  was  under  dealings  by  the  Presbyte- 
ry of  Cambridge,  and  required  by  Synod  to  submit  to  their  decisions,  without 
limitation.  He  submitted,  and  was  admonished  in  Synod  accordingl}'.  In  the 
.same  year,  before  a  commission  appointed  by  Synod,  Presbytery  had  charges 
against  him,  and  he  against  Presbytery,  and  according  to  the  decision  of  that 
commission.  Dr.  Bullions  acknowledged  sin,  and  promised  to  refrain  from  those 
things  that  had  agitated  the  Presbytery  in  his  case,  and  he  submitted  to  an 
admonition.  In  1833,  he  gave  in  to  a  member  of  Presbytery,  a  paper  contain- 
ing dissents  from  and  protests  against  most  of  the  decisions  of  the  commission, 
to  which  he  had  submitted.  In  the  same  year,  he  was  tried  on  a  charge  of 
falsehood,  with  some  other  charges  I  do  not  at  present  recollect;  during  the 
course  of  the  latter  trial,  he  declared  in  Presbytery,  in  words  to  this  effect, 
'*  that  he  had  never  exercised,  contrition,  or  made  confession  to  God  for  any 
one  of  all  the  things  for  which  he  had  been  censured  by  Synod,  commission, 
or  by  Presbytery."  At  the  same  meeting  of  Presbytery,  he  set  up  an  objec- 
tion to  communion  with  Mr.  David  Gordon.  This  w^as  tried  in  1834.  Mr. 
Gordon  was  acquitted  by  Presbytery  of  the  ground  of  the  objection.  Dr. 
Bullions  acquiesced  in  the  decision.  He  again  carried  this  case  by  appeal  to 
Synod.  In  Synod,  October,  1834,  Dr.  Bullions  was  found  guilty  on  all  the 
charges  against  him,  fliat  were  tried  in  Synod,  and  none  of  his  appeals  were  at  that 
time  sustained.  By  order  of  Synod,  Dr.  Bullions  was  referred  to  the  Presbytery  of 
Cambridge,  required  to  acknowledge  before  Presbytery,  his  sin  in  various 
items  stated  in  the  minutes  of  that  year,  and  to  promise  to  agitate  no  more 
those  matters,  by  which  Presbytery  had  been  disturbed,  and  on  these  submis- 


119 

sions  to  be  rebuked  and  restored  to  the  exercise  of  the  uiinistr}',  from  which 
he  had  for  a  time  been  suspended.  Dr.  Bullions  submitted,  and  was  rebuked 
and  restored  accordingly.  In  1835,  Dr.  Bullions  declared  in  Presbytery,  in 
substance  as  follows  : — "  That  he  had  often  heard  it  spoken  of,  and  he  believ- 
ed it,  that  a  member  of  the  Presbytery  had  tampered  with  two  members  of 
Cambridge  Session,  to  induce  them  to  make  a  party  in  the  Congregation." 
This  charge  was  fully  tried  in  Presbytery.  Every  member  of  Presbytery  was 
acquitted  on  trial.  At  the  close  of  this  business,  March,  1836,  Dr.  Bullions 
expressed  his  conviction  in  submission  to  Presbytery's  judgment,  that  the 
charge  was  without  any  foundation,  and  Avas  slanderous,  and  reneAved  his 
promise  to  live  in  peace  with  his  brethren. 

At  the  time  of  the  making  of  these  charges,  Dr.  Bullions  was  required  io 
produce  the  names  of  his  witnesses;  he  did  produce  and  handed  in  to  Pres- 
bytery, the  names  of  two  witnesses.  Those  were  Vv'^alter  Maxwell  and  Phebe 
McGeoch.  At  the  next  meeting  of  Presbytery,  in  the  place  of  Phebe  McGeoch, 
he  handed  in  the  name  of  the  Kcv.  Mr.  Stalker. 

The  aflidavit  of  one  of  these  was  taken  and  the  testimony  of  the  other.  Dr 
Bullions  declined  giving  any  more  Avitnesses  in  the  case.  Presbytery  also 
took  the  testimony  of  all  of  the  Elders  of  the  Cambridge  session  then  present 
and  made  a  further  demand  of  all  the  testimony  known  on  the  point  to  be  pro- 
duced at  the  next  meeting  of  Presbytery.  The  Elders  present  at  that  meeting 
of  Presbyteiy  and  examined  as  witnesses  on  that  case  were  John  Ashton,  Geo. 
Lourie,  Edward  Cook,  William  McGeoch,  John  Dobbin  and  George  Maxwell, 
After  Dr.  Bullions  had  declined  giving  any  further  testimonj',  the  question  was 
asked  of  him  if  he  had  any  further  witnesses  on  the  matter  in  question.  Dr. 
Bullions  then  gave  in  the  following  answer.  "As  I  never  considered  myself 
pledged  to  prove  the  truth  of  the  report  but  only  that  said  report  so  prevailed 
and  was  so  believed,  that  I  had  reason  myself  to  believe  it.  Supposing  that 
this  has  been  done  1  adduce  no  further  testimony."  The  next  meeting  of  Pres- 
bytery was  held  in  the  month  of  January  in  the  year  1836.  At  that  meeting 
certain  persons  were  examined  as  witnesses  in  the  case  of  Dr.  Bullions.  The 
Rev.  Mr.  Stalker  Avas  recalled  as  a  witness.  It  was  agreed  to  recall  Mr.  Lou- 
rie. He  Avas  re-called  and  Avas,  as  I  consider,  very  fully  examined.  He  was 
not  prevented  from  answering  any  question  on  that  examination  that  I  recol- 
lect of.  John  Robertson  Avas  called  as  a  Avitness,  but  I  do  not  recollect  that  any 
oath  Avas  taken  by  him.  He  stated  that  he  did  not  knoAv  of  any  member  of 
Presbytery  tampering  Avith  two  members  of  Cambridge  session,  nor  did  he 
know  Avhat  member  of  Presbytery  Avas  said  to  tamper  Avith  them.  On  the 
same  day  after  this.  Dr.  Bullions  proposed  Mr.  John  Robertson  as  a  witness  to 
prove  that  the  report  that  a  men)ber  of  Presbytery  tampered  Avith  two  mem- 
bers of  Cambridge  session,  Avas  circulated  and  that  he  had  ground  to  beleive 
it.  Mr.  Robertson  being  called  declared  that  he  believed  that  Dr.  Bullions 
could  not  prove  by  him  Avhat  he  had  said  in  Presbytery  respecting  a  member's 
tampering  with  Messrs.  Ashton  and  Cook.  Dr.  Bullions  declined  to  call  John 
Robertson  as  a  AA'itness  and  further  declared  that  the  case  on  which  he  pro- 
posed John  Robertson  as  proof  Avas  the  case  referred  to  by  him  in  North  Ar- 
gyle.  Which'Avas  the  place  in  Avhich  Dr.  Bullions  first  made  the  charges  to 
Presbytery,  Mr.  John  Robertson  was  one  of  the  Elders  of  the  Cambridge  ses- 
sion, a  particular  friend  of  Dr.  Bullions  and  his  defender  in  the  meetings  of 
Presbytery  generally,  I  have  mentioned  and  in  Synod  till  about  the  time  of  his 
deposition.  1  believe  the  next  Sabbath  after  this  case  was  settled,  according 
to  a  complaint  laid  into  Presbytery,  Dr.  Bullions  used  expressions  in  public 
which  some  of  his  people  thought  a  retraction  of  his  late  submission;  the  com- 


120 

plaliil  was  tried  in  Presbytery,  carried  to  Synod.  Synod  decided  that  tlie  mat' 
ler  should  go  buck  to  Presbytery,  and  on  Dr.  Bullions  declaring-  any  intention 
to  contradict  the  deed  of  Presbytery,  in  question  the  matter  should  be  dismis- 
sed. In  the  month  of  September,  18^36,  Dr.  Bullions  made  that  declaration  and 
the  matter  was  dismissed  accordingly.  Mr.  Allen  of  counsel  for  Defendants, 
objects  to  the  whole  of  the  last  answer  of  this  witness  because  the  same  is  ir- 
relevant and  immaterial  and  not  within  the  issue.  I  am  acquainted  with  the 
hand  writing  of  Dr.  Bullions  and  have  seen  him  write. 

Question  by  Mr.  Clark — Look  on  the  superscription  or  direction  of  Exhibit 
H  ;  is  that  in  the  hand  writing  of  Dr.  Bullions  ?  Mr.  Allen  objects  to  this 
question  and  to  any  other  relating  to  Exhibits  H  and  I,  as  irrelevant  and  imma- 
terial, and  not  within  the  i  jsue.  The  objection  is  over-ruled  by  the  Examiner, 
and  the  evidence  received. 

Answer — I  am  fully  satisfied  it  is.     It  is  in  these  words  ; 
"  Rev.  A.  Bullions,  D.  D., 

"  Cambridge, 

"N.  Y." 
The  foot  note,  I  am  fully  satisfied,   is  also  in  the  hand-writing  ofDr.  Bul- 
lions.    It  is  in  these  words : 

♦'  N.  B.  Let  Mr.  D.  Gordon  have  a  reading  of  the  above." 
On  the  trial  of  Dr.  Bullions  before  Presbytery  in  April,  1838,  these  letters 
being  Exhibits  H  and  I,  having  been  at  the  March  meeting  of  Presbytery, 
brought  to  the  knowledge  of  Presbytery,  they  formed  a  part  of  the  matter  on 
which  Dr.  Bullions  was  tried  and  deposed.  Since  I  have  been  a  member  of 
the  Cambridge  Presbytery  no  charge  of  beastly  intoxication  or  any  intoxica- 
tion has  been  made  to  Presbytery  against  any  member  of  Presbytery  to  mjr 
knowledge,  or  come  to  my  knowledge  as  an  individual.  I  believe  I  am  the 
A.  Anderson  referred  to  in  those  Exhibits.  I  have  the  minutes  of  Presbytery 
for  as  far  back  as  1823  or  1824  ;  I  have  not  particularly  read  the  early  minutes. 
I  have  sufficient  reason  to  believe  that  Mr.  Gordon  did  publish  an  article  in  the 
Religious  Monitor,  alleging  that  the  minister  of  Cambridge  Congregation  had 
put  some  books  of  other  denominations  into  the  pews  of  his  church.  Mr.  Gor- 
don afterwards  published  in  the  same  Monitor  an  article  confessing  that  he 
had  rashly  made  that  statement  and  on  insufficient  evidence.  This  charge 
and  retraction  were  both  previous  to  1836  and  previous  to  1833,  according  to 
my  reedllection.  As  to  the  4th  specification  contained  in  Exhibits  H  and  I,  re- 
lative to  "  presumptive  proofs,"  such  a  paper,  as  there  spoken  of,  was  put  into 
my  hands  by  Dr.  Bullions,  only  saying  as  he  gave  it,  "Here  is  more  trouble 
for  vou."  The  paper  had  no  direction  or  address,  either  inside  or  out.  I  wrote 
to  Dr.  Bullions,  when  I  found  its  contents  for  information,  what  use  I  should 
make  of  it,  or  for  what  purpose  he  gave  it  to  me ;  I  received  no  answer.  I  offered 
it  to  Presbytery  ;  they  refused  to  accept  it,  and  b)^  protest  I  carried  it  to  Synod. 
Previous  to  this,  however.  Dr.  Bullions  had  said  in  Presbytery  that  he  had 
given  in  a  paper  containing  dissents  and  protests  against  the  decisions  of  the 
commission,  and  that  he  expected  that,  before  this  time,  the  Synod  had  acted 
on  it.  This  latter  expression  was  made  in  November,  1833,  shortly  after  the 
sitting  of  Synod ;  he  gave  that  paper  to  me  in  July,  1833.  That  paper  went 
up  10  Synod  in  Oc'ober,  1834.  I  never  used  it  for  any  purpose  o'her  than 
those  before  Presby'ery  and  Synod  I  have  spoken  of.  The  Synod  acted  upon 
that  paper. 

Question  by  Mr.  Clark — Did  James  Lourie  testify  before  Presby'ery  tha'  he 
regarded  himself  as  tampered  with  by  one  or  more  members  of  the  Presbyte- 
ry of  Cambridge  ? 


121 

Answer- — He  did  not,  nor  did  he,  to  my  recollection,  testify  to  any  such  pur* 
port  or  effect.     Mr.  James  Lourie  was  a  member  of  the  Associate  Congrega- 
tion of  Cambridge,  and  an  elder  of  that  church.  He  did  not,  to  my  knowledge, 
testify  as  a  witness  on  that   trial.     John   Dobbin  was   also  an  elder  of  that 
church,  and  was  examined  as  a  witness  on  this  trial  before  Presbytery.     I  have 
no  recollection  of  hearing  him  state  or  testify  at  any  time  that  he  himself,  and 
he  believed  several   others  had   been   spoken  to  by  members  of  Presbytery, 
stating  to  them  that,  if  he  and  they  did  not  take  Dr.  Bullions's  part,  the  Pres- 
bytery would  easily  manage  him,  or  words  to  the  same  amount,  or  to  that  ef- 
fect.    I  think  I  should  have  been  likely  to  remember  a  statement  of  that  kind, 
if  made  by  Mr.  Dobbin.     On  that  trial  the  Presbytery  did  not  decline  taking 
the  testimony  of  John  Robertson.     The  Presbytery  were  even  desirous  to  take 
it,  but  on  his  saying  he  had  no  testimony  to  give  to  the  point,  Presbytery  had 
nothing  further  to  demand,  and  Dr.  Bullions  did  not  insist.     The  minutes  of 
Presbytery,    under  date  of  5th  October,  1837,  as  extracted  and  contained  in 
Defendants's  answer,  is  a  very  defective  minute.     It  is  defective  as  represent- 
ing that  the  ground  of  censure  was  an  insinuation,  Avhereas  the  words  called 
an  insinuation  were  the  words  of  Dr.  Bullions  as  he  admitted  in  my  hearing 
substantially,  and  were  treated  as  suchby  the  Presbytery  in  their  dealings  with 
him.    The  mistake  was  in  the  clerk's  calling  them  an  insinuation.     The  defect 
of  the  minutes  was   brought  to  the  notice   of  Presbytery  shortly  after,  but  I 
can  not  say  whether  or  not  it  was  at  the  next  meeting.     Presbytery  refused  to 
change  that  minute  because  a  copy  had  been  given  to  Dr.  Bullions.     One  of 
the  reasons  which  operated  on  Presbytery,  in  drawing  up  a  number  of  requi- 
sitions for  Dr.  Bullions  to  answer  was  that  the  charges  had  not  been  sufficient- 
ly expressed  before,  and  to  guard   against   Dr.    Bullions    taking  advantage  of 
any  ambiguity  or  vagueness.     Another  was  that  Dr.  Bullions  complained  when 
Presbytery  did   not  accept   of  what  he  had  said  as  satisfactory,  that  he  knew 
not  what  they  wanted.    Mr.  Clark  produces  a  paper  purporting  to  bean  extract 
from  the  minutes  of  the  Associate  Presbytery  of  Cambridge,  which  the  wit- 
ness states  to  be  a  correct  extract  from  the  record  book  of  that  Presbytery ; 
which  document  is  hereto  annexed  and  marked  as  Exhibit  Q,  on  part  of  com- 
plainants.    The  reason  given  by  the  Presbytery  for  requiring  strong  and  un- 
equivocal evidence  of  Dr.  Bullions's  repentance  in  order  to  his  restoration,  was 
that  his  professions  and  declarations,  in    submissions  to  this  Presbytery,  have 
so  often  deceived  them  in  times  past.     I  was  present  at  the  pro  re  nata  meet- 
ing in  Cambridge,  November  14th,  1837.     The  seven  requisitions  specified  in 
Exhibit  Q,  on  part  of  Complainants,  were  read  at  that  meeting,  but  they  were 
not  all  presented  to  Dr.  Bullions  to  answer  at  that  meeting  ;  one  was  so  pre- 
sented at  that  meeting,  which  is  numbered  the  5th. 

Question  by  Mr.  Clark — Did  he  answer  that  requisition  at  that  meeting? 
This  question  objected  to  by  Mr.  Allen  of  counsel  for  Defendants  on  the  fol- 
lowing grounds.  Because  this  very  question  has  been  put  to  him  and  answer- 
ed by  this  witness.  The  objection  is  over-ruled  by  the  Examiner  and  the  evi- 
dence received. 

Answer — He  did.  The  answer  as  contained  in  the  minutes  is  correctly  there 
stated,  as  near  as  it  could  be  written  down.  The  next  meeting  of  Presbytery 
was  on  the  6th  day  of  December,  1837.  The  answer  to  the  other  six  requisi- 
tions were  given,  in  writing  by  Dr.  Bullions  at  this  meeting.  AVhich  paper 
contained  no  answer  to  the  5th  requisition,  which  had  been  before  answered. 
At  this  meeting  there  was  a  question  put  to  Dr.  Bullions  by  Presbytery  requi- 
ring evidence  of  his  repentance  for  the  slandor  which  he  had  retracted  in  his 

16 


122 

answer  to  the  5th  requisition.  Which  question  and  answer  are  correctly  stated 
on  page  112  of  the  minutes  of  Presbytery  near  the  foot.  They  are  correctly 
stated  in  the  minutes  in  the  order  in  which  they  transpired  in  Presbytery. 

A.  ANDERSON. 
Sworn,  examined  and   subscrib- 
ed this  second  day  of  Feb.,  in 
the  year  1842,  before  mc, 

James  GIBSON,  Examiner  in  Chancery. 


IN    CHANCERY, 
Befoke   the   Chancellor, 


William  Stevenson,  et  al, 

vs.  J>  Cross-deposition  of  Abraham  Anderson, 

Alexander  Bullions,  et  al. 


Abraham  Anderson,  a  witness  produced  before  Jas.  Gibson,  one  of  the  Ex- 
aminers in  Chancery  of  the  State  of  New-York,  by  the  complainants  in  the 
above  entitled  cause  and  examined  by  Mr.  Clark  of  counsel  for  said  Complain- 
ants, is  now  again  produced  before  said  Jas.  Gibson,  this  third  day  of  Febru- 
ary in  the  year  of  our  Lord  one  thousand  eight  hundred  and  forty  two  and  be- 
ing cross-examined  by  Mr.  Allen  of  counsel  for  the  Defendants,  in  the  above 
entitled  cause,  deposeth  as  follows,  viz.  I  believe  I  was  present  at  the  open- 
ing of  Presbytery  in  October,  on  the  4th  day  of  October,  1837.  I  have  been 
clerk  of  the  Presbytery  since  November,  1833.  I  believe  I  was  not  present  at 
the  very  opening  but  came  in  shortly  after  it  commenced.  I  was  not  present 
when  it  was  organized  at  that  meeting.  That  meeting  was  convened  for  gen- 
eral purposes,  but  there  was  also  one  special  object;  the  special  object  for  which 
the  meeting  convened  was  for  the  trial  of  a  complaint  made  by  Mr.  Stalker 
against  two  members  of  tlie  Presbytery.  Those  members  were  Mr.  Miller  and 
myself.  That  complaint  was  for  false  swearing  before  the  Associate  Presby- 
tery of  Albany.  Mr.  D.  Gordon  was  not  implicated  in  the  complaint.  I  do 
not  know  that  he  was  named  as  furnishing  the  matter  on  which  the  charge 
arose.  I  have  not  seen  the  complaint  since  that  time  that  I  recollect  of.  It  is 
probably  on  the  files  of  the  Presbytery.  I  do  not  know  that  it  is  recorded  in 
the  minutes.  I  think  I  took  the  minutes  a  part  of  the  time  at  that  meeting,  and 
Mr.  Gordon  a  part  of  the  time.  Mr.  Gordon  got  me  to  help  him.  He  was  ap- 
pointed clerk.  Dr.  Bullions  requested  to  be  excused  from  sitting  as  a  member 
of  Presbytery  on  this  trial.  His  request  was  not  granted  by  the  Presbytery. 
I  cannot  say  precisely  who  voted  on  that  question.  I  think  however  all  voted 
except  Mr.  Stalker,  ]Dr.  Bullions,  Mr.  Miller  and  myself.  The  reason  Dr.  Bul- 
lions gave,  for  wishing  to  be  excused  was  substantially  this.  That  he  was 
sonewhat  connected  with  this  matter  formerly.  He  did  not  explain  very  fully 
what  he  meant.  Immediately  after  Dr.  Bullions' request  to  be  excused,  was 
decided  in  the  negative,  Mr.  Miller  objected  that  Dr.  Bullions  should  be  ex- 
cluded from  a  seat  as  a  member  of  the  court.  The  ground  of  the  objection 
was  that  Dr.  Bullions  was,  as  Mr.  Miller  alleged,  at  the  foundation  of  the  com- 
plaint, but  Mr.  Miller  explained  himself  afterwards.  I  do  not  recollect  that  af- 
ter this  Dr.  Bullions  again  renewed  his  request  to  be  discharged.  By  the  min- 
utes it  appears  that  a  motion  was  made  after  this  to  reconsider  the  vote  refus- 
ing leave  to  be  discharged  to  Dr.  Bullions,  which  was  decided  in  the  negative. 
1  think  I  left  the  Presbytery  after  five  o'clock  of  the  first  day  of  its  session,     i 


123 

was  not  present  during  the  remainder  of  the  first  day.     I  was  not  present  at 

the  opening  of  the  meeting  on  the  5th  day  of  October.  I  was  not  present 
when  the  minute  was  made  relative  to  the  words  which  Dr.  Bullions  had  made 
use  of.  I  did  not  hear  the  words  of  Dr.  Bullions,  which  formed  that  minute 
when  first  stated  by  him.  I  am  not  sure  that  I  was  present  when  John  Rob- 
ertson and  Mr.  Skellie  dissented  for  reasons  to  be  given  in.  I  think  however 
I  was  not  present  at  this  time.  I  was  not  present  when  an  imposition  of  si- 
lence was  put  on  Dr.  Bullions  by  the  moderator.  I  do  not  know,  from  personal 
knowledge,  for  what  that  silence  was  imposed.  I  was  not  present  when  the 
first  resolution  of  censure  was  passed  on  Dr.  Bullions.  I  was  not  present  when 
it  was  voted  that  the  censure  due  to  Dr.  Bullions,  be  a  rebuke.  I  stated  what 
I  would  object  if  Dr.  Bullions  should  sit  as  a  member  of  the  court.  The  pa- 
per I  handed  in  is  correctly  copied  on  page  ninety  six  of  the  minutes.  It  is  as 
follows : — 

"  Though  I  do  not  feel  anxious  that  Dr.  Bullions  be  excluded  from  a  seat  in 
Presbytery  on  the  trial  of  Mr.  Stalker's  complaint  against  Mr.  Miller  and 
myself,  yet  he  ought  not  to  have  a  seat  in  this  trial,  because,  according  to  the 
minutes  of  Presbytery  and  Synod,  and  his  own  declarations  before  this  Pres- 
bytery, he  is  interested  in  the  issue;  and  if  the  judgment  of  the  Presbytery  be 
adverse  to  me,  I  will  plead  that  the  proceedure  is  vitiated  by  Dr.  Bullions  hav- 
ing a  seat." 

(Signed,)        A.  ANDERSON. 

Question  by  Mr.  Allen,  of  counsel  for  Defendants — Why  had  Dr.  Bullions 
an  interest  in  the  issue,  and  what  was  that  interest  ? 

Answer — About  three  years  before  Dr.  Bullions  rested  his  defence  in  Synod 
in  a  certain  case  on  the  very  thing  that  Mr.  Stalker  was  attempting  to  prove  in 
this  trial,  Mr.  Stalker  intended  to  prove  a  certain  thing,  and  thereby  prove 
Mr.  Miller  and  myself  guilty  of  falsehood.  Dr.  Bullions  offered,  in  1S34,  in 
July  I  think,  on  a  trial  before  Presbytery,  two  witnesses,  one  of  whom  was 
Mr.  Stalker.  Presbytery  called  on  Mr.  Stalker  to  give  his  testimony.  Mr. 
Stalker  refused  to  state  on  oath  the  fact  alleged  in  Dr.  Bullions's  objection. 
Dr.  Bullions  afterwards  objected,  that  Mr.  Stalker's  testimony  was  not  called 
for,  and  that  Presbytery  decided  in  the  absence  of  evidence  ;  and  on  this 
ground  he  pleaded  his  defence  in  Synod  at  the  following  meeting.  M.  Stal- 
ker substantially  asserted  the  same  thing.  Mr.  Miller  and  myself,  in  testimo- 
ny before  the  Presbytery  of  Albany,  maintained  the  truth  of  the  minute  on 
the  contrary.  For  this  testimony  Mr.  Stalker  charged  Mr.  Miller  and  myself. 
Mr.  Clark  objects  to  all  the  testimony  from  the  beginning  of  the  cross-examin- 
ation of  this  witness,  and  particularly  from  and  after  that  part  of  the  testimo- 
ny which  begins  with,  "  I  stated  what  I  would  object  if  Dr.  Bullions,"  &c.,  as 
immaterial  and  irrelevant,  and  not  within  the  issue. 

The  subject  of  the  trial  above  referred  to,  in  July,  1S34,  was  an  objection 
by  Dr.  Bullions  to  communion  with  Mr.  D.  Gordon, — which  objection  is  in  the 
following  words  : — "  In  regard  of  principle,  I  hold  myself  bound  to  maintain 
communion,  as  far  as  opportunity  offers,  with  all,  when  no  scriptural  impedi- 
ment interposes  ;  but  decline  this  communion  in  now  existing  circumstances 
with  the  Rev.  D.  Gordon,  because  of  certain  statements  made  by  him  in  presence 
of  this  Presbytery,  at  Hebron,  June,  1833;  and  which  I  regard  as  untrue  and 
slanderous,  and  not  yet  recalled: — Such  as,  "asserting  that  I  was  without 
godly  sincerity  and  christian  honesty,  and  guilty  of  habitual  misrepresentation." 
It  was  relative  to  this  objection,  that  Dr.  Bullions  objected,  that  Mr,  Stalker's 
testimony  was  not  called  for  by  Presbytery,  and  Mr.  Stalker  substantially  sta- 


124 

ted  the  same  thing,  and  out  of  this,  grew  tlic  cliarge  against  Mr.  Miller  and 
myself,  as  1  have  already  stated  in  my  testimony.  That  was  the  sole  ground 
of  my  considering  that  Dr.  B.  was  not  a  proper  judge  in  my  cause.  Mr.  Clark 
objects  to  this  testimony  given  since  the  last  objection,  on  the  same  grounds 
as  are  stated  in  said  objection. 

The  ministerial  members  present  at  the  time  of  the   investigation  of  the 
charges  against  Mr.  Miller  and  myself,  were  Messrs.  Stalker,  Bullions,  and  A. 
and  D.  Gordon,  IMiller  and  myself.     Messrs.    Stalker,  Miller  and  myself  did 
not  act  as  members  of  the  court  on  that  occasion.     The  trial  proceeded  on  the 
fifth  day  of  October  till  a  recess.     The  motion,  that  the  censure  due  to  Dr. 
Bullions  be  a  rebuke,  was  made  and  carried  before  Mr.  Stalker  opened  the 
case  against  Mr.  Miller  and  myself.     After  the  recess  the  silence  previously 
imposed  on  Dr.  Bullions  by  the  moderator,  was  removed.    Dr.  Bullions  was  not 
present  when  the   minutes  were  interleaved  at  the  meeting  of  Presbytery  on 
the    7th  day  of  February,   1838,     He  did  not  consent  to  the    alteration  ;  I  do 
not  know  that  he  had  any  notice  that  they  would  be  amended,  or  of  the  in- 
tention to  amend.     The  Presbytery  did  not  administer  the  rebuke  to  Dr.  Bul- 
lions ;  they  never  administer  a  rebuke  unless  the  party  submits,  and  Dr.  Bul- 
lions refusing  to   submit   to  it,  he  was  not  rebuked.     The  judgment  of  the 
court  was  that  Dr.  Bullions  should  be  censured,  and  that  the  censure  should  be 
a  rebuke  ;  there  was  no  other  censure  than  the  rebuke  proposed  at  that  time. 
I  could  not  say  that  the  sentence  of  rebuke  was  a  final,  definitive  sentence  in 
this  case.     The   court,  according  to  the   rules  of  the  church,   could  have  im- 
posed further  censure  after  the  rebuke  had  been  administered  for  that  offence. 
There  is  a  rule,  sometimes  followed,  in  Perdivan,  which  I  cannot  now  refer  to, 
but  think  I  could  if  I  had  time  ;  that  after  rebuke,  there  may  be  further  cen- 
sure.    There  is  an  authority  in  part  in  the  book  of  discipline,  page  55th,  title 
"Rebuke."     To  make   my  meaning   more  full,  the   submission  to  a  rebuke 
would  suppose  a  compliance  with  the  requisitions  of  Presbytery.     An  author- 
ity may  be  found  in  Perdivan,  page  170,  section  8th,  which  I  consider  a  digest 
from  the  acts  of  the  General  Assembly  of  Scotland.     Dr.  Bullions  had  a  right 
to  offer  a  protest  and  appeal  from  the  sentence  imposing  the  censure  of  rebuke 
upon  him.     He  had  a  constitutional  right  to  protest  and  appeal  from  the  sen- 
tence of  rebuke,  in  case  it  is  meant  by  that,  that  he  had  a  right  to  offer  such 
protest   and  appeal.     The   Presbytery   could  not  deprive  Dr.  Bullions  of  the 
right  of  going  to  S3niod,  but  they  could  deprive  him  of  going  there  by  appeal 
from  this  decision.     In  such  case  he  could  go  before  Synod  by  memorial. 

Question  by  Mr.  Allen — Has  not  every  person  accused,  the  right  according 
to  the  rules  of  discipline  and  practice  of  the  Associate  Church,  to  protest  a- 
gainst  and  appeal  from  the  decision  of  an  inferior  court  to  a  superior  one  ? 

Answer — I  can  only  say  as  I  said  before,  that  he  has  a  right  to  offer  a  pro- 
test and  appeal.  The  inferior  court  has  the  right  in  such  case,  to  reject  the 
protest  and  appeal,  so  as  to  deprive  the  party  of  his  right  to  go  to  the  superior 
court  by  appeal.  As  authority  for  this  remark  I  would  quote  the  60th,  and 
61st,  pages  of  the  Book  of  Discipline.  If  the  court  see  fit  to  reject  the  first 
protest  and  appeal,  the  party  has  a  right  to  offer  a  protest  and  appeal  against 
the  rejection  of  the  first  protest  and  appeal.  For  this  I  would  cite  the  same 
authority  as  last  cited.  The  meaning  of  the  tAvo  lines  on  the  61st  page  of  the 
Book  of  Discipline,  which  say — the  party  may  protest  against  the  rejection  of 
his  protest — is  that  he  has  the  privilege  of  offering  his  protest  against  the  re- 
jection of  his  first  protest.  If  the  court  admit  his  second  protest,  that  carries 
the  cause  to  the  superior  court,  if  he  do  not  fall  from  his  protest.  If  the  for- 
mer protest  Avas  against  a  definitive  sentence,  the  latter  protest  would  carry  up. 


125 

the  Avhole  cause  for  a  review  on  its  merits.  If  Dr.  Bullions  had  submitted  to 
the  sentence  of  rebuke  after  the  rejection  of  his  first  protest  and  appeal,  he 
could  not  then  with  propriety  have  carried  up  the  cause  to  S3niod  by  memori- 
al, unless  in  after  proceedure  he  has  new  grounds  for  bringing  the  matter  up. 

Question  by  Mr.  Allen — If  Dr.  Bullions  had  submitted  to  the  censure  of  re- 
buke after  the  admission  of  his  second  protest  and  appeal  against  the  rejection 
of  his  first  protest,  could  he  still  have  carried  the  cause  to  the  Synod,  by  the 
latter  protest  and  appeal  ? 

Answer — He  could  not,  because,  the  submission  would  be  a  renouncing  of 
the  protest.  Contumacy  is  an  offence,  by  the  rules  of  discipline  of  the  Asso- 
ciate Church.  Contumacy  is  a  manifestation  of  contempt  of  the  authority  of 
the  church  courts.  For  authority,  see  Perdivan,  page  169,  section  6th.  Re- 
fusal to  submit  to  the  decisions  of  the  church  courts,  is  not  in  every  case  con- 
tumacy. It  is  not  contumacious  when  time  is  given  to  the  person  censured, 
by  the  court,  for  reflection  or  for  appeal.  When  a  first  protest  and  appeal  is 
admitted,  it  is  not  contumacious  not  to  submit.  It  is  contumacious  for  a  per- 
son to  refuse  to  submit  to   censure,  when  the  court  insist  upon  submission. 

In  answer  to  a  question  by  Mr.  Allen,  the  witness  stated ;  I  think  it  was 
contumacious  in  Dr.  Bullions  to  refuse  submission  to  the  censure  of  rebuke 
by  the  Presbytery,  after  the  rejection  of  his  first  protest  and  appeal.  It  is  not 
censurable  for  one  member  of  a  church  court,  simply  to  state  of  another  mem- 
ber, that  there  are  unfavorable  reports  against  such  members. 

Question  by  Mr.  Allen — Wherein  did  the  offence  consist  of  Dr.  Bullions'" 
statement  concerning  some  members  of  the  court  ? 

Answer — Having  stated  it,  that  he  would  not  furnish  the  means  of  inves- 
tigation ;  Dr.  Bullions  in  this  case  refused  to  furnish  the  means  of  investiga- 
tion ;  he  refused  in  the  first  place  to  give  the  names  of  the  members  of  the 
court  against  whom  he  had  stated  the  reports  were  ;  he  also  refused  to  furnish 
specification  of  the  charges  at  the  time  of  the  meeting  of  the  fifth  day  of  Oc- 
tober, 1837. 

Question  by  Mr.  Allen — Does  it  appear  on  the  minutes  of  the  meeting  of 
the  fifth  day  of  October,  1837,  that  Dr.  Bullions  refused  to  furnish  the  specifi- 
cation of  the  charges  against  the  members  spoken  of  by  him.  Mr.  Crary,  of 
counsel  for  Complainants,  objects  to  this  question  on  the  following  grounds  r 
that  the  minutes  are  in  the  possession  of  the  party,  and  he  can  inspect  them  as 
well  as  the  witness.  The  Examiner  over-rules  the  objection  and  receives  the- 
testimony. 

Answer — It  is  not  formally  expressed  on  the  minutes  as  I  see.  I  mean  by 
the  word  "  formally"  that  it  is  not  explicitly  stated. 

Question  by  Mr.  Allen — Is  it  stated  at  all  on  the  minutes  of  the  5th  day  of 
October,  1837.  The  like  objection  by  Mr.  Crary,  and  is  over-ruled  in  like 
manner.  The  groundsof  Mr.  Crary's  objection  are  that  the  minutes  are  now 
before  the  Examiner  and  the  parties,  and  are  the  best  evidence.  Also  that 
the  question  has  been  put  to  the  witness  to  be  answered  by  parole,  and  that 
he  answered,  and  he  is  now  asked  to  shew  by  the  minutes  that  his  answer  is 
not  correct.  Mr.  Allen  answers  to  this  that  the  minutes  are  in  the  hands  of 
the  witness  when  the  question  is  asked,  and  that  he  has  been  examining  him 
with  reference  to  the  meeting  of  the  fifth  day  of  October,  1837,  from  the 
minutes. 

The  witness  then  states  as  follows: — It  is  not  stated  at  all  in  the  minutes  of 
that  day,  but  I  mean  by  the  word  stated,  that  it  is  not  explicitly  stated.  Dr. 
Bullions  at  the  meeting  of  the  5th  of  October,  1837  gave  the  names  of  the  four 
members  of  Presbytery  against  whom  he  stated  the  charges  were.    The  names 


126 

.are  as  follows  :  Messrs  Miller,  A.  and  D-  Gordon  and  myself.  He  gave  those 
names  before  the  sentence  of  suspension  was  passed  upon  him  as  recorded  in 
the  minutes  of  that  meeting.  He  also  at  the  same  time  referred  to  persons  by 
whom  to  prove  the  truth  of  the  reports  being  in  circulation.  These  persons 
were  tjie  Kev.  George  Mairs  and  the  Kev.  Peter  Gordon.  I  believe  I  voted  on 
the  suspension  of  Dr.  Bullions,  and  in  the  affirmative. 

Question  by  Mr.  Allen — Was  the  contumacy  for  which  the  suspension  was 
voted  refusing  to  submit  to  the  censure  of  rebuke  before  imposed  by  Presbyte- 
ry? 

Answer — I  say  my  judgment  is  that  the  contumacy  consisted  in  his  perse- 
verance in  the  offences  charged  of  which  his  non  submission  to  the  rebuke  was 
the  evidence.  His  refusal  to  submit  formed  no  part  of  the  contumacy,  other- 
wise than  as  evidence  of  perseverance  in  the  offences  charged  by  Presbytery. 
The  principal  offence  for  AvhichDr.  Bullions  was  suspended,  was  referring  the 
means  of  investigating  the  reports  which  he  alleged  against  his  bretheren  nam- 
ed, together  with  denying  his  own  words  and  using  a  contemptuous  expression 
in  Presbytery.  It  was  the  right  of  any  other  member  of  Presbytery  to  cause 
the  investigation  of  the  charges  if  they  had  the  means;  but  he  was  bound  to 
do  it  by  the  rules  of  the  Church.  The  Presbytery  were  bound  to  investigate  the 
charges  if  they  could  obtain  the  means.  They  could  by  the  rules  of  the  Church 
have  commenced  an  investigation  and  caused  Dr.  Bullions  to  attend  as  a  wit- 
ness by  the  rules  of  the  Church,  if  they  had  the  means  of  commencing.  Nei- 
ther the  Presbytery  nor  Dr.  Bullions  could  compel  the  attendance  of  witnesses 
before  the  Presbytery,  who  did  not  belong  to  the  Associate  Church. 

Question  by  Mr.  Allen — Can  a  member  of  the  court  who  is  an  accuser  sit 
in  judgment  on  the  accused?  or  on  the  trial  of  the  matter? 

Answer — If  the  alone  accuser,  he  cannot;  but,  if  the  court  be  the  accuser,  they 
can.     See  as  authority  the  book  of  Discipline,  page  44,   Perdivan,  page  172, 

section  14. 

Question  by  Mr.  Allen. — If  a  party  submits  to  an  unjust  sentence  of  a  court 
ion  beincT  required  so  to  do  by  the  court,  what  is  his  remedy,  if  he  has  any  ? 
The  question  is  objected  toby  Mr.  Clark  on  the  following  grounds:  That  it 
is  a  mere  supposed  case  without  any  application  to  the  cause  and  is  assuming 
that  a  court  will  act  unjustly,  or  that  its  sentences  are  unjust.  Which  objec- 
•tion  is  over-ruled  by  the  Examiner  and  the  evidence  is  received. 

Answer — In  some  submissions  it  is  perfectly  consistent  that  he  carry  it  up  by 
appeal  or  memorial.  For  instance,  in  case  of  a  suspension  from  the  exercise 
^of  the  ministry  or  the  communion  of  the  Church,  see  as  authority  for  this 
the  book  of  Discipline  of  the  general  Assembly  Presbyterian  Church,  page 
414,  item  15.  The  witness  explains  that  in  the  sentence  in  folio  152  he  wishes 
'.to  strike  out  of  the  sentence  the  words  "his  right  to  go"  and  insert  the  word 
•"going"  so  as  that  the  sentence  will  read  as  follows:  "The  inferior  court  has 
the  right  in  such  case  to  reject  the  protest  and  appeal  so  as  to  deprive  the  party 
♦of  ffoine  to  the  superior  court  by  appeal." 

^     ^  ^  A.  ANDERSON. 

.Sworn,  examined  and  subscribed  ) 
this  3d  day  of  Feb.,  in  the  year  > 
1842,  before  me.  ) 

JAMES  GIBSON,  Examiner  in  Chancery. 


IN    CHANCERY: 

Before  the  Chancellok. 


William  Stevenson,  .<  a?,    )  ^^^.^^^^^   cross -Deposition   of 


.  T?*  .    7    (  A.  Andekson. 

Alexander  Ijullions,  et  al. 


Abraham  Anderson  a  witness  produced  in  this  cause  on  the  part  of  the  com- 
plainants and  examined  by  Mr.  Clark,  their  counsel,  and  cross-examined  by  Mr. 
Allen,  of  counsel  for  Defendants,  which  cross-examination  not  having  been  fin- 
ished, the  witness  is  again  produced,  this  eleventh  day  of  July,  1842,  at  the 
place  aforesaid,  and  being  further  cross-examined  by  Mr.  Allen  deposeth  there- 
on as  follows,  viz : — 

Question  by  Mr.  Allen. — If  a  minister  has  been  suspended  by  the  Presbytery 
in  consequence  of  his  first  protest  and  appeal  from  the  sentence  of  suspension 
being  rejected,  and  protests  and  appeals  from  the  rejection  of  his  protest  and 
this  carries  the  cause  to  the  Synod,  and  the  Synod  reverses  the  suspension,  what 
remedy,  if  any,  has  the  minister  and  Congregation,  for  thus  being  deprived  of 
his  and  their  privileges  during  the  pendency  of  the  appeal? 

This  question  is  objected  to  by  Mr.  Clark,  of  counsel  for  Complainants,  on 
the  ground  that  it  is  a  mere  question  of  law,  and  that  the  same  question  might 
with  equal  propriety  be  put  in  the  case  of  any  indictment  for  crime  where  the 
man  should  afterwards  be  acquitted.  The  examiner  over-rules  the  objection 
and  receives  the  testimony. 

Answer — I  do  not  know  that  they  have  any  redress  except  what  is  furnished 
by  the  reversal  of  the  decision. 

Question  by  Mr.  Allen — What  was  the  object  of  the  meeting  of  the  Mth' 
November,  1837,  of  Cambridge  Presbytery  ? 

Answer — It  was  to  take  into  consideration  the  affairs  of  Dr.  Bullions  and  the 
Congregation  of  Cambridge. 

Question  by  Mr.  Allen — What  was  the  paper  which  Dr.  Bullions  had  han- 
ded into  Presbytery  at  the  previous  meetmg  of  Presbytery  on  the  6th  of  Oc- 
tober, and  which  was  considered  among  other  things  at  the  meeting,  held  14th- 
November,  1837  ? 

Answer — It  is  as  follows: — "The  subscriber  being  prevented  yesterday  from 
recording  on  the  minutes  of  Presbytery,  his  views  of  the  language  imputed  to' 
him,  and  voted  censurable,  begs  leave  from  a  sense  of  duty  to  himself,  to  re- 
ligion, to  this  court,  and  to  society,  solemnly  to  declare  in  the  presence  of  the 
Searcher  of  all  hearts,  that  the  language  attributed  to  him,  does  not  convey  the' 
meaning  he  intended  ;  and  that  he  regards  it  as  improper,  disclaims  it,  and'  if 
used  by  him,  expresses  his  sincere  regret  for  having  uttered  it. 

(Signed)  ALEXANDER  BULLIONS. 

Argyle,  October  6th,  1837." 

Mr.  Crary  of  counsel  for  complainants,  objects  to  this  document  as  evidence" 
on  the  following  grounds:  That  it  is  examining  the  decision  of  the  Presby-- 
tery,  which  when  confirmed  by  the  Synod,  as  in  this  case,  was  conclusive  up- 
on the  parties. 

Question  by  Mr.  Allen — Was  you  present  at  the  meeting  of  the  Presbyterjv 
at  Salem,  March  7th,  1838  ? 

Answer — I  was. 

Question  by  Mr.  Allen — Was  that  the  first  meeting  at  which  the  subject  of 
the  anonymous  letters  was  considered  ? 


1L>S 

AiKsucr — 1  l)flicve  il  was  tlic  first  meeting  at  whicli  it  was  judicially  noticed. 

Question  by  JVtr.  Allen — Had  the  subject  of  the  anonymous  letters  been  be- 
fore PresbytciT)  at  all  previous  to  that  ? 

Answer— Only  by  reference  made  by  David  Gordon,  and  a  record  of  that 
rei'erence,  made  on  the  6th  day  of  December,  18137.  I  was  present  at  the 
whole  meeting  of  the  Presbytery  of  7th  March,  1838. 

Question — Did  you  vote  on  the  question,  whether  Mr.  Gordon  had  proved  his 
assertion  in  regard  to  the  anonymous  letters  ?  The  question  is  objected  to  by 
Mr.  Clark  of  counsel  for  Complainants,  on  the  ground,  that  this  was  a  mee- 
ting of  Presbytery  of  which  Mr,  Anderson  was  a  member,  and  he  cannot  be 
examined  as  to  how  he  voted,  lieing  a  judge  of  the  court.  The  objection  is 
over-ruled  by  the  Examiner  and  the  evidence  received. 

Answer — I  believe  I  did. 

Question  by  Mr.  Allen — Was  Dr.  Bullions  present  at  the  meeting  of  Pres* 
bytery  on  the' 7th,  and  Sth,  of  March,  1838? 

Answer — He  was  not. 

Question  by  Mr.  Allen — Was  the  appeal  of  which  you  spoke  in  your  direct  ex- 
amination from  a  proceeding  of  the  Presbytery,  at  the  meeting  of  March  Sth, 
1838,  recorded  on  the  minutes,  regular  and  according  to  the  rules  of  discipline 
of  the  Associate  Church  ?  The  question  is  objected  to  by  Mr.  Clark  on  the 
grounds,  that  it  has  no  bearing  on  this  case,  and  is  irrelevant  and  inadmissible 
under  the  pleadings.  The  objection  is  over-ruled  by  the  examiner,  and  the 
answer  taken  down. 

Answers-It  was  regular. 

Question — Have  you  any  authority  for  that  ? 

Answer — None  except  the  general  rule  allowing  appeals. 

Question^ — Did  you  serve  the  citation  with  certification  agreeable  to  the  res- 
olution of  Presbytery  at  the  meeting  of  March  8th,  1838. 

Answer — I  did  not  serve  it  personally. 

Question  by  Mr.  Allen— Did  you  ever  know  of  an  instance,  except  in  the 
case  of  Dr.  Bullions,  when  a  party  was  proceeded  against  in  your  church, 
without  three  citations?  The  question  is  objected  to  by  Mr.  Clark,  of  coun- 
sel for  Complainants,  on  the  ground,  that  it  is  a  mere  question  of  practice  in 
that  court,  and  can  not  be  enquired  into  here — that  the  decision  of  the  Pres- 
bytery gave  the  Synod  jurisdiction.  The  objection  is  over-ruled  by  the  Exam- 
iner and  the  ani'.wer  taken  down. 

Answer — I  do  not  assume  the  words  of  your  question,  but  I  answer,  this.  I 
did  know  one  case  of  censure  on  a  person  absent,  without  three  citations.  If  it 
be  necessary  to  the  answer  of  the  question,  I  deny  that  Dr.  Bullions  was  pro- 
ceeded against  without  three  citations. 

Question  by  Mr.  Allen — Do  you  state  that  Dr.  Bullions  was  not  proceeded 
•against,  on  the  subject  of  the  anonymous  letters  untill  he  had  three  citations 
served  upon  him  ? 

Answer — I  do  not  state  it.  I  mean  he  had  not  three  citations  under  the 
charge  of  the  anonymous  letters. 

Question  by  Mr.  Allen — Who  was  the  person  of  whom  you  spoke  as  having 
been  censured  without  three  citations?  This  question  is  objected  to  by  Mr. 
dark  of  counsel  for  Complainants,  on  the  ground  that  the  answer  having  been 
given  to  the  former  question.  Defendants'  Counsel  is  obliged  to  take  it,  and 
cannot  ask  another  growing  out  of  the  former  answer.  The  objection  is  over- 
ruled by  the  examiner  and  the  evidence  received. 

Answer — It  was  Mr.  Andrew  Stark. 

Question — By  what  Presbytery  was  he  censured  ? 


129 

Answer — The  censure  was  not  by  Presbytery,  it  was  by  Synod,  ia  1836. 
Question — Was  Mr.  Stark  present  at  that  meeting  of  Synod  ? 
Answer — He  was  present  a  part  of  the  time,  but  was  absent  when  censured. 
Mr.  Crary  again  objects  to  what  has  been  answered  since  his  last  objection,  as 
follows,  viz  :  The  question  is  calculated  to  cast  suspicion  on  the  witness  in  requi* 
ring  him  to  prove  what  he  states  is  true.     That  this  is  enquiring  into  an  entire 
collateral  matter  not  having  any  connection  with  the  subject  matter  in  issue,- 
and  as  irrelevant  and  immaterial. 

Question  by  Mr.  Allen. — Had  Mr.  Stark  a  trial  at  that  meeting  of  Synod? 
Mr.  Clark,  of  counsel  for  Complainants,  objects  to  the  question  of  Mr.  Allen  on 
the  same  ground  as  before.     The  examiner  over-rules  the  objection  and  re- 
ceives the  evidence. 
Answer — He  had. 

Question  by  Mr.  Allen. — Was  the  censure  of  which  you  spoke  as  having 
been  inflicted  on  Mr.  Stark  a  sentence  of  suspension,  as  the  result  of  his  trial? 
The  question  is  objected  to  by  Mr.  Clark,  of  counsel  for  Complainants, on  tho 
ground  that  Mr.  Stark  is  not  on  his  trial,  and  his  conviction  has  nothing  to  do 
with  this  case,  and  that  it  is  irrelevant  and  immaterial.  The  objection  is  over- 
ruled by  the  examiner  and  the  evidence  received. 
Answer — 'It  was. 

Question  by  Mr.  Allen — -At  the  next  meeting  of  Synod  in  1837,  v/as  that 
sentence  of  suspension  reversed  by  Synod?     The  questior^is  objected  to  by 
Mr.  Clark,  of  counsel   for   Complainants,  on   the  same  ground  as  last  above 
stated.     The  Examiner  over-rules  the  objection  and  receives  the  evidence. 
Answer — 'It  may  be  considered  as  reversed  by  a  curtailed  Synod. 
Question  by  Mr.  Allen — Did  you  serve  the  citation  issued  to  Dr.  Bullions  at 
the  meeting  of  10th  of  April,  1838,  returnable  on  the  12th  ? 
Answer — -I  did  not  myself. 

Question  by  Mr.  Allen — How  did  you  know  it  was  served  ?  Answer,  by  the 
testimony  of  a  respectable  man. 

Question  by  Mr.  Allen — What  do  you  mean  by  "  testimony?" 
Answer — I  mean  his  word. 
Question  by  Mr.  Allen — Was  it  under  oath. 

Answer — I  cannot  say  as  I  was  not  personally  present,  and  speak  from  tha 
credit  of  the  minutes- 
Question — Was  there  any  one  appointed  to  act  for  Dr,  Bullions  during  his 
trial,  and  when  he  was  deposed  ? 

Answer — There  was  not,  and  it  is  not  required  by  the  rules  of  discipline  of 
the  Associate  Church.  Mr.  Allen  objects  to  the  latter  part  of  this  answer  as 
not  responsive  to  the  question. 

Question — =Did  you  vote  to  impose  the  sentence  of  suspension  on  Dr.  Bul- 
lions on  the  fifth  of  October,  1837.  Mr.  Clark,  of  counsel  for  Complainants, 
objects  to  the  question ;  that  it  appears  by  the  minutes  what  the  decision  was, 
and  Defendants'  counsel  cannot  ask  how  the  witness  voted,  and  parole  evi- 
dence of  that  fact  cannot  be  given.  The  Examiner  over-rules  the  objection 
and  receives  the  testimony. 
Answer — I  believe  I  did. 

Question — Was   that  a  vote  of  censure  ?     Mr.  Clark,  of  counsel  for  Com- 
plainants, objects  to  the  question  on  the  ground  that  the  minutes  shew  what 
the  vote  was,  and  the  character  of  the  discipline  inflicted.     The  objection  was 
thereupon  over-ruled  by  the  Examiner  and  the  evidence  received. 
Answer — It  was. 

Question  by  Mr.  Allen — At  the  meeting  of  Synod  in  May,  183S,  was  Dr* 
17 


130 

Bullion's  declinature  and  Mr.  Goodwillie's  protest,  of  which  you  have  spoken 
in  your  direct  examination,  before  Synod  ? 

Answer — I  believe  the  declinatures  were  present,  the  protest  I  believe  was 
not. 

Question  by  Mr.  Allen. — Is  it  right,  under  the  rules  of  the  Associate  Church, 
for  an  individual  whose  character  is  involved  in  the  issue  of  the  trial,  to  set  in 
judgment  on  the  accused  ? 

Answer — It  is  not  right  for  an  individual. 

Question  by  Mr.  Allen — Is  a  person  accused,  tried  and  censured  required 
by  the  rules  and  discipline  of  the  Associate  Church  to  submit  to  the  censure 
right  or  wrong  ? 

Answer — Theoretically  he  is  not,  and  practically  he  is.  A  court  passing  an 
unjust  sentence  believing  it  to  be  right,  can  do  nothing  less  according  to  the 
rules  of  the  Associate  Church,  than  require  submission,  although  the  general 
rule  requires  submission  only  to  righteous  decisions. 

Question  by  Mr.  Allen — Did  you  attend  the  meeting  of  the  Synod  in  May, 
183S  and  1889  as  a  member  ? 
Answer — I  did  so. 

Question — Are  you  the  person  recorded  in  the  minutes  of  those  years  as  vo- 
ting under  the  name  of  Anderson. 
Answer — I  am. 

Question — You  stated  in  your  direct  examination,  that  the  term  "  Congre- 
gation" in  the  As^ciate  Church  included  only  those  in  full  commimion.  What 
do  you  call  those  who  attend  Church  from  Sabbath  to  Sabbath,  pay  pew  rent, 
and  their  share  towards  the  support  of  the  gospel  in  the  particular  Church  to 
which  they  attend,  but  who  are  not  in  full  communion? 

Answer — They  are  commonly  called  "hearers"  or  "adherents." 
Question  by  Mr.  Allen — Of  what  description  of  persons  is  the  Associate 
Church  composed? 

Answer — Of  professing  christians  voluntarily  associated  together  for  the  en- 
joyment of  divine  ordinances  according  to  the  word  of  God,  and  submitting  to 
a  certain  form  of  government. 

Question  by  Mr.  Allen. — Do  }'ou  cite  any  authority  for  this? 
Answer — I  cite  book  of  Discipline,  pages  third  and  4th. 
Question  by  Mr.  Allen — Do  you  cite  any  authority  for  your  answer  relative 
to  "  hearers  or  adherents  ?"     I  do  not  recollect  of  any  except  common   usage 
in  ecclesiastical  courts  and  cut  of  courts. 

Question  by  Mr.  Allen — What  is  the  difference,  if  any,  between  the  term 
"  Church"  and  the  term  "  Congregation." 

Answer — The  term  "  Church"  may  comprehend  many  congregations  asso- 
ciated   together,  and   sometimes    it  means  the  same  as  "  Congregation,"  but 
the  term  "  Congregation"  never  means  the  church  as  an  extended  body. 
Question  by  Mr.  Allen — What  is  your  authority  for  the  last  answer  ? 
Answer — The  book  of  discipline,  pages  3rd  and  4th. 

Question  by  BIr.  Allen — What  is  your  authority,  if  any,  for  saying  that  the 
accused  has  in  all  cases  no  right  to  judge  for  himself,  whether  the  decision 
against  him  by  the  church  court,  is  in  accordance  with  the  rules  of  the  church 
and  the  word  of  God,  or  not  ?  Mr.  Clark  objects  to  the  question  on  the  ground 
that  this  question  does  not  fairly  present  either  any  single  answer  or  any  col- 
lective number  of  answers  given  by  the  witness.  Mr.  Allen  replies  that  it  is 
in  the  words  of  a  question  and  answer  in  the  direct  examination  of  the  witness 
on  this  subject.  The  Examiner  thereupon  over-rules  the  objection  and  receive* 
the  testimony. 


131 

Answer — The  question  implies  what  I  did  not  assert,  and  requires  the  quali- 
fication to  be  added  which  Avas  included  in  the  former  question  and  answer, 
to  wit : — "  So  as  to  affect  his  relation  to  the  church."  Under  this  statement  of 
the  question  as  qualified  by  me  in  this  answer,  I  cite  as  authority  the  general 
principles  of  prcsbyterial  church  government  as  contained  in  the  standards  of 
the  Associate  Church. 

Question — You  have  said  in  your  direct  examination  that  there  are  no  cases 
in  which  the  decisions  of  Synod  are  not  final,  because  in  the  opinion  of  the 
person  accused  they  are  not  in  accordance  with  the  rules  of  the  church  and 
the  word  of  God.     What  authority  have  you  for  that  answer  ? 

Answer — The  same  authority  as  last  given  ;  and  common  sense  which  says 
that  the  opinion  of  an  individual  cannot  nullify  the  decisions  of  the  court  or 
suspend  it. 

Question — Why  are  these  words  inserted  in  the  ordination  vow,  viz  : 

"  Remembering  that,  while  they  act  uprightly,  they  judge  not  for  men  but 
for  the  Lord  who  is  also  with  them  in  the  judgment  ?" 

Answer — I  may  not  give  the  full,  but  I  will  give  some  of  the  reasons. — 
First :  To  assert  the  duty  and  office  of  the  court.  Second  :  The  high  obliga- 
tions of  their  decisions,  when  correct. 

Question  by  Mr.  Allen — Is  there  a  difference  of  opinion  in  the  Associate 
Church,  as  to  the  effect  of  these  words? 

Answer — The  Church,  as  a  body,  has  manifested  no  disagreement,but  some 
individuals  have  differed  in  opinion  from  the  collective  body  on  this  point,  or 
at  least,  have  professed  they  have. 

Question — Did  George  Lourie  in  his  testimony  before  Presbytery  on  the  in- 
vestigation of  the  charge  that  two  members  of  Cambridge  session  had  been 
tampered  with,  state  that  he  had  been  tampered  with?  Mr.  Clark  of  counsel 
for  Complainants  objects  to  the  question  on  the  grounds,  that  it  is  immaterial 
and  irrelevant  and  that  the  particular  testimony  of  the  witness  on  that  trial 
cannot  be  enquired  into  here.  The  objection  is  over-ruled  by  the  examiner 
and  the  evidence  received. 

Answer — According  to  my  rememberance  he  said:  "I  considered  myself 
tampered  with  " 

Question  by  Mr.  Allen — Was  Mr.  George  Lourie's  testimony  stricken  out, 
or  disallowed  by  the  Presbytery  in  considering  the  case?  Mr.  Clark  of  coun- 
sel for  Complainants  objects  to  the  question  on  the  grounds  that  it  is  immate- 
rial and  irrelevant  and  that  the  views  of  Presbvtery  as  to  the  weight  or  effect 
of  the  evidence  before  them,  cannot  be  enquired  into  here.  The  objection  is 
over-ruled  by  the  examiner  and  the  evidence  is  received. 

Answer — I  think  not,  as  Presbytery  only  gave  judgment  against  it  as  irrele- 
vant testimony. 

Question  by  Mr.  Allen — Do  you  know  of  any  arrangement  or  calculation 
among  the  members  of  the  Cambridge  Presbytery  or  any  of  them  previous  to 
the  fro  re  nata  meeting  of  November,  1837,  or  at  any  other  time,  to  exclude 
any  of  the  members  of  Presbytery  from  sitting  in  Dr.  Bullions'  case? 

Answer — I  know  of  no  such  arrangement  or  calculation  except  my  own 
thoughts. 

Question  by  Mr,  Allen — Did  you  hear  of  any  such  arrangement  previous 
to  the  meeting? 

Answer — Not  to  my  recollection. 

Question  by  Mr,  Allen — Are  you  on  friendly  terms  with  Dr.  Bullions? 
Answer — If  the  question  is  understood  to  apply  only  to  myself,  I  say  I  con- 
sider I  am. 


132 

Question  by  Mr.  Allen — Do  you  entertain  now  the  same  feelings  of  friend- 

fihip  toward  him  as  you  ever  did? 

Answer — I  think  I  do. 

Question  by  Mr.  Allen — Do  you  think  as  hii^hly  of  him  as  a  man  as  you 
ever  did  ?  Mr.  Clark,  of  counsel  for  Complainants,  objects  to  the  question, 
on  the  ground  that  it  is  immaterial  and  irrelevant,  and  his  opinion  of  Dr. 
BuUions's  qualifications  in  any  particular  matter,  or  of  his  particular  standing, 
is  not  evidence  of  the  degree  of  friendship  that  may  exist  between  them. — 
The  Examiner  over-rules  the  objection  and  receives  the  answer. 

Answer— My  opinion  of  him  may  be  less  favorable  while  I  have  the  same 
wish  for  his  welfare,  temporal  and  spiritual. 

Question — Did  you  advise  with  the  Complainants  or  any  of  them,  or  con- 
sult with  them,  relative  to  bringing  this  suit  previous  thereto  ? 

Answer — I  think  I  did  not,  except  as  called  on  by  them  for  information ;  this 
I  do  not  consider  as  consulting  or  advising. 

Question  by  Mr.  Allen — Was  you  present  in  Albany  before  the  Chancellor 
on  the  argument  of  the  motion  for  an  attachment  against  some  of  the  Defend- 
ants and  for  an  injunction. 

Answer — I  have  no  recollection  about  the  attachment,  but  have  of  the  in- 
junction, and  was  present  in  the  court  room  of  the  Chancellor  when  it  was 
argued. 

Question  by  Mr.  Allen — Did  you  take  any  part  in  the  writing  or  publication 
of  a  pamphlet  published  by  Chauncey  Webster  against  Dr.  Bullions,  or  against 
him  and  others  ? 

Answer — I  did  not  less  or  more  to  my  knowledge. 

Question  by  Mr.  Allen — Did  you  go  to  Albany  or  send  there,  and  advise  the 
publication  of  that  pamphlet  ? 

Answer — I  did  not,  nor  did  I  advise  directly  or  indirectly  to  it.  I  did  not 
know  of  a  particle  of  matter  that  was  to  be  in  it,  and  when  I  saw  it  I  regret- 
ted the  publication  of  it.  Mr.  Crary  objects  to  all  that  part  of  the  foregoing 
cross-examination  of  Mr.  Anderson,  which  relates  to  the  intermediate  pro- 
ceedings and  practice  of  the  Presbytery  on  its  trials  and  of  the  opinions  and 
votes  of  individual  members  on  the  questions  which  arose  during  those  trials, 
and  to  all  that  portion  which  refers  to  the  proceedings  in  relation  to  Mr.  Stark, 
and  it  was  understood  that  this  general  objection  should  have  the  same  effect 
as  if  made  at  each  question  and  answer. 

A.  ANDERSON. 

Sworn,  cross-examined,  and  sub-  ) 
scribed  this  11th  day  of  July,  > 
in  the  year  1842,  before  me,    ) 

JAMES  GIBSON,  Examiner  in  Chancery. 

IN   CHANCERY. 
Betore  the  Chancellor. 


William  Stevenson,  c<  a/.    ^ 

vs.  >  A.  Anderson's  re-examination. 

Alexander  Bullions,  et  al.    ) 

Abraham  Anderson,  a  witness  produced  on  the  part  of  the  Complainants  in 
this  cause  and  examined  by  Mr.  Clark,  of  counsel  for  said  Complainants,  there- 
upon cross-examined  by  Mr.  Allen,  of  counsel  for  the  Defendants,  before  Jaf . 


133 

Gibson,  one  of  the  Examiners  in  chancery,  in  and  for  the  County  of  Washingf- 
ton,  in  the  State  of  New- York,  being  now  again  produced  before  said  Exami- 
ner, this  twelfth  day  of  July,  in  the  year  1842,  and  re-examined  by  Mr.  Clark 
of  Counsel  for  said  Complainants,  deposeth  as  follows,  "viz: — 

Question  by  Mr.  Clark. — On  the  trial  of  yourself  and  Mr.  Miller,  before 
Presbytery,  in  October,  1837,  you  have  given  the  names  of  the  ministerial 
members  present,  give  the  names  of  the  ruling  Elders  present? 

Answer — Messrs  Benjamin  Skellie,  John  Robertson,  John  Henry,  John  T. 
Law,  and  George  Boyd. 

Question — You  say  that  Dr.  Bullions  was  not  present  at  the  meeting  of 
Presbytery  of  7th  February,  1838,  when  the  minutes  were  interleaved,  as 
amended.  Was  his  attention  at  any  time  called  to  that,  and  what  did  he  say 
as  to  its  correctness  ? 

Answer  —Though  his  attention  may  not  have  been  called  to  it  in  Presbyte- 
ry formally,  he  admitted  and  assumed  the  truth  of  the  matter  of  them  in  his 
answer  to  Presbytery,  November  14th,  and  December  6th,  1837  as  they  were 
afterwards  interleaved  and  amended  by  Presbytery  in  February,  1838. 

Question  by  Mr.  Clark — Please  explain  the  facts,  in  relation  to  Dr.  Bullions 
refusing  to  furnish  specifications  of  charges  and  to  give  the  names  of  persons 
against  whom  he  made  the  charges  at  the  meeting  of  Presbytery,  on  the  5th 
of  October,  1837,  and  of  the  witnesses  and  what  he  finally  did  in  relation  to 
furnishing  the  same,  and  the  action  of  Presbytery  connected  with  it  during 
the  progress  of  the  matter  that  day  ?  Mr.  Allen  of  counsel  for  defendants, 
objects  to  this  question  on  the  following  grounds,  viz:  That  the  whole  sub- 
ject was  inquired  into  on  the  direct  examination  and  cannot  now  be  again  ex- 
amined into.  That  the  minutes  of  Presbytery  already  exhibited,  shew  the 
facts  and  are  the  best  evidence.  Mr.  Clark  replies  that  he  asks  this  question 
relative  to  questions  asked  on  the  cross-examination,  which  upon  the  deposition 
leave  it  in  confusion  and  he  wishes  an  explanation.  Mr.  Allen  replies  that 
his  cross-examination  was  in  reference  to  the  direct  examination  on  this  very 
subject.  Whereupon  the  examiner  over-ruled  the  objection  and  received  the 
evidence. 

Answer — Before  any  vote  of  censure  was  passed  upon  Dr.  Bullions  on  the 
5th  of  October,  1837,  he  refused  to  give  the  names  of  the  members  to  whom 
he  referred.  This  was  in  the  forenoon.  Dr.  Bullions  being  deprived  of  the 
privilege  of  debate  for  that  sitting,  his  case  was  laid  over  till  the  afternoon, 
and  other  business  taken  up.  In  the  afternoon  the  sentence  imposed  being  re- 
moved, the  Presbytery  proceeded  with  Dr.  Bullions's  case.  A  vote  of  suspen- 
sion being  proposed.  Dr.  Bullions  rose  and  gave  the  names  which  had  been  re- 
fused in  the  morning,  but  still  did  not  give  the  specifications  of  charge. 

Question  by  Mr.  Clark — What  do  you  mean  when  you  say,  for  that  sitting, 
and  what  is  meant  in  the  record  by  the  term  sitting  ? 

Answer — We  mean  the  same  in  the  record  as  the  old  word  *'  sedement" 
terminating  by  each  recess  or  adjournment. 

Question — When  you  say  that  one  of  his  offences  was  denying  his  own 
words,  and  using  a  contemptuous  expression  to  Presbytery,  what  was  that  ex- 
pression? Mr.  Allen,  of  counsel  for  Defendants,  objects  to  the  question  on 
the  grounds,  that  the  attention  of  the  witness  has  been  already  called  to  this 
subject  in  his  direct  examination,  and  that  he  has  already  testified  that  he  was 
not  present  when  the  expression  was  made,  and  can  not  therefore  of  his  own 
knowledge,  state  what  it  was,  and  that  the  minutes  are  the  best  evidence  on 
the  subject  of  what  that  expression  was.  Which  objection  is  overruled  by 
the  examiner  and  the  answer  received. 


134 

Answer — According  to  the  minutes  it  was  in  substance,  that  they  might 
censure  him  till  they  were  tired. 

Question  by  Mr.  Clarlc — Did  Dr.  Bullions  give  to  the  Presbytery  the  words 
he  did  use  or  intended  to  use  on  the  occasion  referred  to  on  the  5th  of  OctO' 
ber,  1837?  Which  question  is  objected  to  by  Mr.  Allen,  of  counsel  for  De- 
fendants on  same  grounds  as  before. 

Answer — He  never  did  to  my  knowledge  oive  to  Presbytery  the  words  which 
he  intended  louse  other  than  those  attributed  to  him. 

Question  by  Mr.  Clark — Why  was  not  the  paper  handed  or  sent  to  Presby- 
tery by  Dr.  Bullions  of  the  6th  of  October,  1837,  deemed  by  Presbytery,  sat- 
isfactory ?  Which  question  is  objected  to  by  ^Ir.  Allen,  of  counsel  for  Defen- 
dants, on  the  same  ground  as  before.  Whereupon  the  examiner  over-rules  the 
objection  and  received  the  evidence. 

Answer — First:  Because  they  judged  the  forms  of  it  sinful.  Second:  He 
did  not  state  therein  nor  thereafter  what  he  did  mean.  Third :  He  still  refu- 
sed the  means  to  investigate  the  charges  he  had  made,  which  last  was  the 
chief  ground  of  Presbytery's  complaint  at  that  time. 

Question  by  Mr.  Clark — Was  Dr.  Bullions  notified  previous  to  the  trial  of 
Mr.  D.  Gordon,  in  March,  1838,  that  he,  Mr.  Gordon,  was  to  be  tried  at  that  time 
on  the  charges  which  he  had  made  against  Dr.  Bullions,  of  having  written  or 
caused  to  be  written,  slanderous  letters,  &c  ?  Which  question  was  objected  to 
by  Mr.  Allen  of  counsel  for  Defendants  on  the  same  ground  as  before,  and  also 
that  the  evidence  is  irrelevant  and  immaterial.  Whereupon  the  examiner 
over- ruled  the  objection  and  the  answer  was  taken  down. 

Answer — He  was  ordered  by  Presbytery  to  be  notified.  I  as  clerk  Avrote 
the  notification,  and  sent  it,  but  by  whom  I  forget,  and  I  believe  it  was  served. 
Mr.  Allen  objects  to  that  part  of  this  answer  in  which  the  witness  states  his 
belief. 

Question. — What  do  you  mean  when  you  say  that  the  sentence  of  suspen- 
sion on  Mr.  Stark,  "  may  be  considered  as  reversed  by  a  curtailed  Synod  ?" 

Answer — I  said  it  may  be  considered  as  reversed,  because  Mr.  Stark  was 
restored  to  the  exercise  of  his  ministry,  and  the  communion  of  the  church 
without  a  trial,  or  examination  of  his  cause,  and  "  curtailed"  when  the  rever- 
sal was  refused  in  a  tolerable  full  Synod,  and  after  many  of  the  members  had 
gone  away,  a  re-consideration  was  voted,  and  Mr.  Stark  restored. 

Question  by  Mr.  Clark — You  say  in  your  answer  to  Mr.  Allen's  question, 
that  the  church  can  do  nothing  less  than  to  require  submission  to  its  decisions 
although  the  general  rule  requires  submission  only  to  righteous  decisions,  who  is 
to  judge  whether  the  decision  is  righteous  so  far  as  the  privilege  of  the  accus- 
ed is  concerned  in  the  participation  of  church  privileges  and  ordinances,  and 
the  exercising  its  offices  ?  Mr.  Allen  objects  to  the  question,  that  it  has  been 
put  and  answered  on  his  direct  examination.  Which  objection  is  over-ruled 
by  the  examiner  and  the  evidence  received. 

Answer — It  is  the  church  court  only.  For  authority,  see  confession  of  faith, 
page  575. 

Question — When  George  Lourie,  in  his  testimony  before  the  Presbytery  as 
spoken  of  in  your  cross-examination,  said,  "  I  considered  myself  tampered 
with,"  was  he  asked  who  it  was  he  considered  had  tampered  with  him  ? 

Answer — He  was. 

Question — Did  he  answer  then  ? 

Answer — He  did  not  ;  he  refused. 

Question — When  did  he  answer,  if  ever,  who  it  was  and  under  what  cir- 
cumstances ?  The  question  is  objected  to  by  Mr.  Allen  as  immaterial.  Which 
objection  is  over-ruled  by  the  Examiner  and  the  evidence  received. 


135 

Answer — At  the  same  meeting  of  Presbytery  at  which  he  declined  to  an- 
swer, but  not  till  after  much  dealing  with  him  for  the  purpose. 

Question — Who  did  he  say  the  person  was  ?  Mr.  Allen  objects  same  aa 
before.  Which  objection  was  thereupon  over-ruled  and  the  evidence  receiv- 
ed by  the  Examiner. 

Answer — He  said  it  was  the  Rev.  James  Irvine  ;  was  Mr.  Irvine  then  a 
member  of  the  Presbytery  ? 

Answer — He  was  not,  and  had  not  been  for  three  or  four  years. 

Question — When  was  this  testimony  given  by  Mr.  Lourie,  as  stated  above 
and  where  ? 

Answer — On  the  21st  day  of  January,  1836,  at  Hebron  he  gave  the  name- 
of  Mr.  Irvine. 

Question — Where  else  did  he  give  testimony  on  this  subject  ? 

Answer — He  had  previously  given  testimony  on  it  on  the  4th  of  November, 
1835,  at  Cambridge. 

Question — Why  was  the  testimony  of  Mr.  Lourie  at  Cambridge  judged. to 
be  irrelevant  ? 

Answer — Because  the  charge  was  of  tampering  with  two  members  of  Cam- 
bridge Session,  and  these  two  were  found  at  the  meeting  of  Presbytery  in 
Hebron  to  be  Messrs.  Ashton  and  Cook,  and  Mr.  Lourie's  testimony  was  now 
ascertained  not  to  refer  to  them,  therefore  it  was  irrelevant  to  the  charge. 

Question — Is  the  second  declinature  of  Dr.  Bullions  sent  in  to  Presbytery 
at  their  meeting,  at  Argyle,  in  April,  1838,  correctly  copied  on  page  2Sth,  of 
the  book  marked  as  Exhibit  0,  on  part  of  Complainants  ?  Mr.  Allen,  of  coun- 
sel for  Defendants,  objects  to  this  question,  on  the  grounds  that  the  original 
ought  to  be  produced,  and  is  the  best  evidence.  Objection  over-ruled  and 
evidence  received. 

Answer — It  is  substantially,  and  I  believe  literally. 

Question — Have  the  members  of  the  former  Vermont  Presbytery,  together 
with  Dr.  Bullions  and  other  persons  who  have  been  suspended  or  deposed  by 
the  Associate  Synod,  formed  a  laew  Synod  under  the  same  or  some  other  name, 
as  you  are  informed.  Mr.  Allen,  of  counsel  for  Defendants,  objects  to  this 
question,  on  the  grounds  that  it  is  irrelevant  and  immaterial,  and  is  calling  for 
matter  which  has  arisen  since  the  commencement  of  this  suit,  and  for  which 
there  is  no  foundation  in  the  bill,  and  which  is  not  within  the  issue  which  was 
joined  before  the  matter  called  for  occurred,  and  that  it  calls  for  hearsay  testi- 
mony.    The  Examiner  over-rules  the  objection  and  takes  down  the  answer. 

Answer — They  have,  according  to  my  information  from  uniform  report,  and 
what  purports  to  be  the  minutes  of  their  Synod.  That  part  of  the  answer 
which  speaks  of  minutes  of  Synod,  Mr.  Allen  objects  to,  because  the  minutes 
should  be  produced,  as  they  are  the  best  evidence. 

A.  ANDERSON. 

Sworn,  re-examined  and  subscrib- 
ed, this  12th  day  of  July,  in 
the  year  1842,  before  me, 

JAMES  GIBSON,  Examiner  in  Chancery. 


IN    CHANCERY: 

Before  the  Chancellor. 


William  Stevenson,  et  al,  )  »      a  ,    c    ., 

'  '  r  A.  Anderson  s  further   cross 

vs.  /  T-<  •       ■ 

.  Tj  <    7  ^  Examination. 

Alexander  Bullions,  et  al.  ) 


Abraham  Anderson,  a  witness,  produced  on  the  part  of  the  Complainants, 
in  this  cause,  and  examined,  cross-examined  and  re-examined  by  the  counsel 
for  the  parties  in  the  above  entitled  cause,  being  again  cross-examined  by  Mr. 
Allen,  of  counsel  for  said  Defendants,  deposeth  as  follows,  viz. : 

Question  by  Mr.  Allen — Are  the  assumptions  and  admissions,  to  which  you 
refer  in  your  re-examination,  as  having  been  made  by  Dr.  Bullions  to  Presby- 
tery, on  the  14th  day   of  November,  1837,  and  6th   of  December,  1S37,  con- 
tained in  the  minutes  of  Presbytery  of  those  meetings  ? 
Answer — They  are  on  pages  106  and  112. 

Question  by  Mr.  Allen — Did  Dr.  Bullions  persist  in  maintaining,  at  the  se« 
•veral  meetings  of  Presbytery,  spoken  of  above  in  your  re-examination,  that  he 
never  used,  according  to  the  best  of  his  knowledge,  the  words  imputed  to  him 
as  censurable. 

Answer — He  did  so  at  both  those  Presbyteries;  yet  at  the  same  meetings  he 
answered  questions  in  which  he  directly  recognized  the  truth  of  the  charge  j 
and  these  questions  and  answers  are  contained  in  the  minutes  of  Presbytery 
of  those  meetings. 

Question — Did  John  Robertson  enter  his  dissent  against  the  correctness  of 
that  minute  ?  Mr.  Clark  objects,  that  this  question  has  been  answered  before, 
and  has  been  proved  by  the  minutes.  Which  objection  was  over-ruled  by  the 
examiner,  and  the  evidence  received. 

Answer — John  Robertson  entered  his  dissent ;  it  is  not  definitely  said  against 
what:  it  will  be  found  on  page  95  of  the  minutes,  I  was  not  personally  pres* 
ent,  and  speak  as  to  this  matter  on  the  credit  of  the  minutes. 

Question — How  many  members  of  the  Synod  usually  assemble  at  a  meeting  ? 
Answer — They  vary  very  much  from  perhaps  50  to  90  or  upwards. 
Question — What  would  you  call  a  tolerable  full  vote  of  Synod  ? 
Answer — The  vote  of  the  greater  part  of  the  members  met  at  the  time. 
Question — How  many  members  were  present  at  the  meeting  in  May,  1837. 
Answer — I  think  upwards  of  90.     I  was  moderator  that  year. 
Question — What  was  the  question  taken  on  the  tolerable  full  vote  you  spoke 
of,  and  how  many  voted  ? 

Answer — The  qutstion  was,  "to  smstain  the  chair  or  not  in  the  decision  that 
the  sentence  of  suspension  still  remains  unreversed."  The  number  of  votes 
taken  was  between  60  and  70.  On  one  side  33  or  thereabouts,  and  on  the 
other  about  31. 

Question — Before  this  vote,  had  a  vote  been  taken  in  Synod  and  carried  af- 
ter full  discussion,  to  review  the  proceedings  of  Synod  for  the  preceding 
year  relative  to  Mr,  Stark  ?  Mr,  Clark  objects  that  the  evidence  is  irrelevant 
and  immaterial  and  improper.  The  examiner  over-rules  the  objection  and  re- 
ceives the  evidence. 

Answer — There  had  been. 

Question — How  many  votes  were  given  on  the  motion  to  reconsider  the' pre- 
vious vote  ? 


137 

Answer — The  number  is  recorded  as  44,  and  I  believe  from  memory,  is  cor* 
rect. 

Question — State  the  yeas  and  nays  on  that  vote  ?  Mr.  Clark  objects  to  this 
question,  and  also  to  the  whole  of  the  examination  on  this  subject.  The  ex- 
aminer over-rules  the  objection  and  receives  the  evidence. 

Answer — Yeas,  30  ;  nays,  14. 

Question — Could  any  person  move  to  reconsider,  but  one  who  voted  to  sus- 
tain the  chair?  Mr.  Clark,  of  counsel  for  complainants,  objects  to  the  ques- 
tion last  put  on  same  ground  as  before.  Which  objection  is  over-ruled  by  the 
examiner  and  the  evidence  is  received. 

Answer — He  could  not,  because  the  vote  to  sustain  the  chair  was  a  major- 
ity vote. 

Question — How  many  members  attended  Synod  at  their  meeting  in  1838  ? 
Mr.  Clark,  of  counsel  for  Complainants,  objects  to  this  question  on  the  ground 
that  it  is  immaterial,  and  the  minutes  are  made  an  exhibit  and  they  will  shew. 
The  examiner  over-rules  the  objection  and  receives  the  testimony. 

Answer — Seventy-nine,  according  to  my  court. 

Question — When  Mr.  George  Lourie  first  testified  in  Noveniber,  1835,  rela- 
'tive  to  his  being  tampered  with,  was  he  directed  by  the  moderator  not  to  give 
the  name  of  the  person  who  he  considered  had  tampered  with  him  ? 

Answer — I  have  no  recollection  of  such  an  order. 

Question — Was  he  required  by  Presbytery  at  that  meeting  to  give  the 
name  ? 

Answer — I  have  no  recollection  of  it. 

Question — Did  he  at  the  meeting  in  January,  1836,  give  the  reasons  why 
he  declined  to  give  the  name,  and  if  so,  what  were  they? 

Answer — I  recollect  of  him  complaining  that  it  was  a  very  delicate  matter 
to  give  the  name,  and  of  his  fear  of  a  prosecution.     That  is  all  I  recollect. 

Question  by  Mr.  Allen — Is  it  according  to  the  rules  and  practice  of  the  As- 
sociate Church  to  notice  or  take  up  for  trial,  or  censure  words  uttered  by  a 
member  at  a  previous  meeting  of  Presbytery,  unless  they  were  recorded  or 
noted  at  the  time  in  the  minutes. 

Answer — It  is  not  contrary  to  any  rule  that  I  know  of;  nor  do  I  know  that 
it  is  contrary  to  the  practice  of  the  Associate  Church. 

Question  by  Mr.  Allen — Can  you  give  any  cases  or  examples  ? 

Answer — None  occur  to  me. 

A.  ANDERSON. 
Sworn,  cross-examined   and  sub-  ) 
scribed  this  12th  day  of  July,  in  > 
the  year  1842,  before  me.  ) 

JAMES  GIBSON,  Examiner  in  Chancer rj. 

I  certify  the  foregoing  to  be  a  correct  copy  of  the  Deposition  of  the  Eev. 
Abraham  Anderson,  in  the  above  entitled  cause,  as  examined  and  compared 
with  the  original,  by  me. 

JAS.  GIBSON,  Examiner  in  CKancery, 
18 


IN    CHANCERY, 

Before  the   Ohanckllou 


V  William  Stevenson,  et  al,  Coinplts.  ^ 

vs.  >  Deposition  of  Rev.  John  G.  Smart. 

Alexander  Bullions,  e<  al.  Defts.     ) 


Deposition  of  witnesses  produced,  sworn  and  examined  in  a  certain  cause 
now  pending  in  the  Court  of  Chancery  of  the  State  of  New  York,  before  the 
.Chancellor  of  said  State,  wherein  William  Stevenson,  William  Roberson, 
Alexander  McGeoch,  Edward  Small,  John  McArthur,  James  McArthur,  Rob- 
ert McArthur,  Peter  McArthur,  George  Small,  John  Arnot,  James  Arnot,  Ed- 
ward Cook,  John  Robertson,  Thomas  McMorris,  James  Hoy,  John  McDoiil, 
Isaac  Ashton,  John  Foster  and  William  Livingston,  members  of  the  Church, 
in  full  communion,  known  as  the  Associate  Congregation  of  Cam.bridgc,  of 
the  County  of  Washington,  in  the  State  of  New  York,  adhering  to  the  prin- 
ciples of  the  Associate  Presbytery  of  Pennsylvania  formerly,  now  the  Associ- 
ate Synod  of  North  America,  are  Complainants,  and  Alexander  Bullions,  James 
Coulter,.  James  Shiland,  Robert  McClelland,  Peter  Hill,  Trustees  of  the 
Associate  Congregation  of  Cambridge  together  with  the  Associate  Congre- 
gation of  Cambridge  of  the  County  of  Washington,  adhering  to  the  principles 
of  the  Associate  Presbytery  of  Pennsylvania  formerly,  now  the  Associate  Sy- 
nod of  Noth  America,  are  Defendants  on  the  part  of  the  said  Complainants, 
before  James  Gibson,  one  of  the  Examiners  in  Chancery,  &c.  at  Salem  in  the 
County  of  Washington  this  8th  Sept.  1841  as  foUov/s,  viz  :  The  parties  to -this 
suit  mutually  waive  the  giving  in  of  the  names  of  the  witnesses  to  be  examined 
herein.  John  G.  Smart  produced  as  aforesaid  on  the  part  of  the  Complainants, 
and  being  duly  sworn  deposeth  as  follows,  viz: 

I  am  a  resident  of  the  city  of  Baltimore,  in  the  State  of  Maryland.  I  am 
a  clergyman  of  the  Associate  Church,  and  am  thirty-seven  years  of  age.  I 
have  charge  of  a  congregation  of  the  Associate  Church  in  the  city  of  Baltimore  and 
have  had  such  charge  for  four  years  past,  and  have  had  charge  of  Congrega- 
tions in  the  Associate  Church  for  twelve  years  passed.  The  Associate  Churcli 
has  a  material  form  of  government,  in  the  United  States.  The  diiTerent  Church 
judicatories  in  that  body  are  a  Session.  Presbytery  and  Synod.  The  Session 
is  constituted  by  the  Pastor  of  the  Congregation,  and  the  Elders  belonging  to 
the  same  Congregation  ;  they  have  the  power  of  admitting  persons  to  the  fel- 
lowship of  the  Church  and  of  suspending  them  from  the  communion.  The 
Presbyteries  consist  of  the  Pastor  within  certain  limits  and  one  ruling  elder  from 
each  Congregation  which  has  a  settled  minister  over  it.  Two  ministers  and 
one  Elder  make  a  quorum.  The  Presbytery  can  take  cognisance  of  charges 
against  a  minister,  a  session  cannot  take  cognisance  of  a  charge  against  a 
minister.  A  Synod  consists  of  the  ministers  of  the  various  Presbyteries  and 
an  Elder  from  each  settled  Congregation.  Presbyteries  at  a  remote  distance 
may  appoint  Delegates,  to  attend  and  the  rest  remain  at  home ;  but  our  Synod 
is  not  a  delegated  body.  The  Synod  are  the  Judges  of  the  qualifications  of 
their  members.  Ministers  are  entitled  to  seats  in  Synod,  if  in  good  standing  in 
the  Associate  Church,  and  Elders  of  vacant  Congregations  may  be  assumed 
there  is  only  one  Synod  of  the  Associate  Church  in  North  America.  There 
are  numerous  Presbyteries  in  the  Associate  Church.     Cases  decided  by  the 


139 

Presbytery  may  be  appealed  to  Synod.     They  may  come  up  by  appeal,  refer- 
ence, Complaint  or  memorial.     The  Synod  is  a  Church  Court  of  last  resort  and 
its  decisions  are  final.     The  Associate   Church  has  a  book  of  Discipline. — 
There  has  been  only  one  book  of  Discipline  of  the  Associate  Church.     The 
book  marked  as  exhibit  A,  on  the  part  of  Defendants  is  that  edition.     On  that 
book  and  on  page  seven  will  be  found  Avhat  constitutes  a  Session.     A  Presby- 
tery is  defined  on  page  ten,  article  fourth  of  part  first.     A  Synod  is  defined  on 
page  12,  article  fifth  of  part  first.     I  know  of  no  particular  article  shewing  that 
there  is  but  one  Synod  in  North  America.  It  was  understood  at  the  formation  of 
our  Church,  that  the  limits  of  the  Synod  were  co-extensive  with  the  continent 
of  North  America.     In  the  169  page  of  the  declaration  and  testimony  of  the  As- 
sociate Church, will  be  found  an  act  of  the  Associate  Synod  of  Scotland,  defining 
the  connection,between  that  Synod  and  the  Synod  of  North  America.     Subse- 
quently this  connexion  was  in  a  good  measure  changed.     The  government  of 
the  Church  in  North  America,  is  a  government  of  subordination  :    vows  are  re- 
quired of  ministers,  to  submit  to  this  subordination;  the  ordination  vow,  is  one. 
The  formula  of  questions  at  the  one  hundred  and  seventieth  page  of  the  dec- 
laration and  testimony,  is  an  acknowledgement  of  this  form  of  Church  gov- 
ernment, and  at  question  six   is    an  engagement  to   submit  to  the  Church  ju- 
dicatures.    A  deposed  or  excommunicated  minister  is  not  in  good  standing  in 
the  Associate  Church.     In  Presbytery  we  have  a  moderator.     He  presides  and 
keeps  order  and  can  silence  a  member.     He  is  possessed  of  all  the  necessary 
powers  to  keep  order.     On  page  twenty  seven  of  the  book  of  discipline  in  the 
eleventh  rule  of  proceedure,  gives  the  powers  of  the  moderator  incases  of  this 
kind.     There  are  two  kinds  of  declinature.     A  declinature  is  lawful,  when  a 
court  is  declined  because  the  court  has  made  some  unjust  niterlocutory  sentence 
which  if  carried  into  effect,  would  make  the  final  decree  unjust.     In  the  col- 
lections by  Stewart  "of  Perdivan"  will  be  found  the  authority  of  the  Associ- 
ate Church  on  this  point.     In  book  fourth,  title  fifth.  Section   ninth,  it  will  be 
found.     See  pages  one  hundred  and  ninety  four  and  one  hundred  and  ninety 
five  of  the  Abroath  edition  of  1802.     Also  in  the  first  volume  of  "  Gibs  dis- 
play "  on  page  165,  166,  167,  168,  169  170  &  171.     This  contains  the  declina- 
ture of  the  fathers  of  the  Associate  Church  to  the  General  Assembly  of  Scot- 
land.    This  document  we  contend  was  a  lawful  declinature,  and  shows  what 
we  consider  is  a  lawful  declinature.     Mr.  Erskine  was  one  of  the  Fathers  of 
our  Church.     He  separated  from  the  General  Assembly  because  of  errors  in 
the  Church,  which  were  pointed  out  in  his  Syriodical  sermon.     An  unlawful 
declinature  would  be  when  a  member  refused  to  be  tried  by  his  own  Presbyte- 
ry, and  refused  to  recognise  his  own  Presbytery,  as  having  authority  to  try  him. 
This  will  be  found  in  book  fourth,  title  fifth,   section  ninth,  page    194,  of 
Stewart's  collection.     In  case  of  a  minister  making  an  unlawful  declinature 
deposition  is  the  censure  which  follows.     This  doctrine  is  contained  in  the  last 
reference.     I  was  a  present  member  of  the  Synod  when  the  case  of  Dr.  Bul- 
lions came  up,  and  was  disposed  of.     It  came  before  Synod  in  a  peculiar  way. 
Mr.  Crary,  of  counsel  for  Complainants,  proposes  to  ask  the  witness  whether 
Dr.  Bullions  Avas  charged  before  the  Synod  with  having  circulated  anonymous 
letters  against  his  brethren.     Mr.  Allen,  of  counsel  for  the  Defendants,  objects 
to  the  question,  on  the  ground  that  it  is  immaterial  and  irrelevant,  and  no  proper 
foundation    for  it  in  the  Bill    and   not  within  the  issue.     The  Examiner  over- 
rules the  objection  and  receives  the  testimony.     Mr.  Allen  objects  that  if  any 
charges  were  made  and  were  in  writing,  they  should  be  produced.     The  wit- 
ness then  stated    that  Dr.  Bullions  appeared  before  Synod  with  a  complaint 
against  his  own  Presbytery,  which  Synod  refused  to  notice.     The  minutes  of 


140 

Synod  for  1838  shew  the  proceedings  in  tlie  matter;  on  page  twenty-six  of 
the  minutes  of  Synod  of  lbl3S  shew  the  decision  of  Synod  with  regard  to  the 
taking  up  of  that  case.  Mr.  Crary,  of  counsel  for  Complainants,  then  pro- 
duces a  pamphlet  which  is  nuide  Exhibit  13,  and  which  the  witness  states  con- 
tains a  true  and  correct  statement  of  the  proceedings  of  Synod  relative  to 
the  case  of  Dr.  Bullions  at  the  session  in  1838.  Presbytery  had  authority  to 
proceed,  in  the  absence  of  Dr.  Bullions.  In  case  a  party  neglects  or  refuses  to 
attend,  on  summons,  they  may  proceed,  the  same  as  if  he  was  present ;  see 
book  of  discipline,  part  third,  article  second,  page  46th,  and  also  the  form  of 
process  which  is  an  adopted  standard  of  the  Associate  Church  on  page  217 
of  Stewart's  collection,  chapter  seventh,  section  6th,  contains  the  same  doc- 
trine ;  and  is  rcognized  in  the  book  of  discipline  as  is  shown  in  the  advertise- 
ment prefixed  to  the  book,  of  discipline.  The  case  of  Dr.  Bullions  was  not  re- 
gularly before  Synod  by  protest  and  appeal.  The  court  below  consenting  to 
its  being  brought  into  Synod,  it  was  equivalent  to  a  reference.  If  the  Pres- 
bytery had  not  consented,  Synod  could  not  legally  have  taken  cognizance  of 
the  case.  When  this  case  Avas  brought  before  Synod  they  met  in  the  city  of 
Philadelphia,  on  the  twenty-third  day  of  May,  in  the  year  1838.  I  was  pre- 
sent at  the  meeting,  as  one  of  the  members  of  the  court.  Synod  had  the  pow- 
er of  examining  and  adjudging  upon  the  validity  of  the  proceedings  of  the 
Presbytery  of  Cambridge,  touching  the  proceedings  in  the  case  of  Dr.  Bullions, 
and  finally  determining  it.  The  book  of  discipline,  page  12th,  article  5th, 
part  first,  proves  this,  and  it  is  also  shewn  by  the  61st  and  62d  pages  of  the 
book  of  discipline,  part  third,  article  12th.  I  would  also  refer  to  Stewart, 
book  fourth,  title  5th,  section  7th,  on  page  194. 

Mr.  Crary,  of  counsel  for  Complainants,  produces  a  book  called  "  Collections 
and  observations  methodized  by  Stewart  of  Perdivan,"  and  is  the  Abrouth 
Edition  of  1802,  which  the  witness  says  he  has  used,  and  which  he  finds  to  be 
in  conformity  with  other  editions,  which  book  is  marked  as  "  Exhibit  C,"  on 
the  part  of  Complainants. 

The  decision  on  the  case  of  Dr.  Bullions  was  necessarily  final,  it  being  a 
decision  of  the  court  of  last  resort.  Dr.  Bullions  protested  against  it.  Per- 
mission was  given  him  to  protest,  and  he  had  liberty  to  reduce  it  to  writing, 
which  was  afterwards  presented.  A  protest  against  the  decision  of  a  superior 
court  is  the  strongest  form  in  which  disapprobation  of  the  decision  can  be  pro- 
nounced, and  is  done  by  the  party  while  at  the  same  time  he  submits  him- 
self to  the  decision.  This  will  be  found  on  pcge  sixty-second  of  the  book  of 
discipline,  part  third,  article  12th.  The  protest  was  finally  reduced  to  writing, 
and  delivered  to  Synod  by  Dr.  Bullions.  It  AviJJ  be  found  on  the  minutes  of 
the  year  1839,  and  at  page  twenty-third  of  those  minutes  and  continued  on 
page  twenty- four.  In  every  case  of  protest,  when  the  party  intimates  an  in- 
tention to  resist  the  decision,  it  is  considered  as  a  declinature.  Synod  gave 
an  answer  to  this  protest  as  appears  by  the  minutes  of  1839 ;  and  on  page 
thirty  four  in  which  they  take  that  view  of  the  protest  of  Dr.  Bullions.  The 
Presbyterial  form  of  church  government  is  that  which  governs  the  Associate 
Church.  In  the  exercise  of  that  form  the  court  requires  present  submission 
to  its  decisions.  The  court  of  final  resort  always  does  so,  and  subordinate  ju- 
dicatories do  so  also,  unless  they  admit  a  protest,  which  protest  if  admitted  in 
all  cases  sists  proceedure.  They  have  power  to  proceed  however  and  reject 
the  protest  and  go  to  issue.  See  book  of  discipline,  page  sixty,  part  third, 
article  twelfth.  There  can  be  no  forgiveness  without  submission.  In  case 
of  refusal  to  submit  the  censure  advances  and  is  increased  with  the  contu- 
macy of  the  party.     See  book  of  discipline,  part  third,  article  eighth,  sec- 


141 

tion  fifth,  on  page  fifty-seven.  In  proportion  as  tlie  party  hold's  out,  the  ofr 
fence  increases  in  tiirpitnde.  In  one  sense  the  higher  punishment  of  excom- 
munication is  for  the  contumacy.  Conscience  is  not  the  appeal  with  us,  it  is 
the  word  of  God,  and  the  subordinate  standards  of  discipline.  A  partyresist- 
ing  the  operation  of  a  sentence  on  the  plea  that  he  conscientiously  believed  it 
to  be  wrong  could  not  on  that  plea  or  on  its  ground  retain  his  standing  in  the 
Associate  Church.  The  Synod  is  a  court  which  continues  but  a  few  days,  and, 
they  had  power  to  refer  him  back  to  the  Presbytery  of  Cambridge;  Accord- 
ing to  the  rules  of  Synod,  that  reference  required  a  literal  compliance  on  the 
part  of  Dr.  Bullions,  and  he  could  not  therefore  go  to  any  other  Presbytery,, 
and  render  submission.  The  Presbyteries  are  confined  to  certain  geographi- 
cal limits,  and  no  Presbytery  can  in  the  exercise  of  its  jurisdiction  over-step 
those  limits.  Reference  is  to  book  of  discipline,  pages  ten  and  eleven,  article 
fourth  of  part  first.  Also,  the  act  of  the  Associate  Synod  erecting  the  Presby- 
tery of  Vermont,  which  will  be  found  in  the  minutes  of  Synod  for  the  year 
1838,  pages  thirty-five  and  thirty-six.  The  Presbytery  of  Vermont  had  no 
power  or  right  to  exercise  jurisdiction  in  the  case  of  Dr.  Bullions,  because  he 
resided  in  the  bounds  of  another  Presbytery,  and  had  been  referred  by  order 
of  the  Synod  to  the  Presbytery  of  Cambridge.  There  is  no  similarity  between 
the  case  of  Dr.  Bullions  and  that  of  Ebenezer  Erskine.  This  answer  is  ob- 
jected to  by  Mr.  Allen,  of  counsel  for  Defendants.  Over-ruled  by  the  exami- 
ner. 

Mr.  Crary,  of  counsel  for  complainants,  proposes  to  ask  the  witness  what 
the  dfference  is?  Objected  to  by  Mr.  Allen,  of  counsel  for  Defendants,  and 
received  by  the  examiner. 

Mr.  Erskine  was  adjudged  worthy  of  censure  for  the  exercise  of  his  right  of 
testifying  in  a  sermon  against  the  defections  in  the  Church  of  Scotland.  This 
was  the  Synodical  sermon  preached  by  him  before  the  Synod  of  Perth  and 
Sterling.  Dr.  Dullions's  case  on  the  other  hand  originated  in  a  charge  of  an 
immoral  character  in  practice.  I  consider  these  the  fundamental  points  of  dif- 
ference. One  was  charged  with  doing  what  his  public  profession  declared  to 
be  his  duty.  The  other  with  doing  what  his  profession  declared  to  be  sinful. 
Mr.  Erskine  ultimately  seceded  from  the  Church  of  Scotland.  He  first  car- 
ried his  protest  and  appeal  to  the  General  Assembly.  This  will  be  found  in. 
the  first  volume  of  Gibb's  Display,  page  twenty-seven  to  thirty-six.  The  Gen- 
eral Assembly  refusing  to  sustain  his  protest,  and  refusing  to  permit  him  to  en- 
ter a  protest  against  their  decision,  but  appointing  him  to  be  censured  for  mak- 
ing that  protest ;  he  then  made  a  secession  from  the  General  Assembly.  Mr. 
Erskine  was  not  charged  with  any  immorality  by  the  General  Assembly.  Af- 
ter the  deposition  of  Dr.  Bullions  was  confirmed  by  Synod,  they  sent  two  min- 
isters to  heal  the  difficulties  in  the  congregation.  The  Rev.  Alexander  T.. 
McGill  and  Joseph  McKie,  both  of  them  being  ministers  of  the  Associate- 
Church.  The  Synod  had  a  right  to  appoint  this  commission,  as  by  reference 
to  the  book  of  discipline,  part  first,  article  fifth.  A  Trustee,  or  the  board  of 
Trustees,  of  a  Congregation  in  the  Associate  Church,  have  no  right  by  the 
law  and  custom  of  the  Church,  to  employ  a  minister  to  preach.  This  last  an-- 
swer  is  objected  to  by  Mr.  Allen,  of  counsel  for  Defendants,  and  is  received  by 
the  examiner. 

Mr.  Crary  asks  the  witness  whether  the  Trustees  of  a  Congregation,  accor- 
ding to  the  law  of  the  Associate  Church,  have  a  right  to  close  the  doors  against 
a  minister  in  good  standing  in  the  Church,  and  against  the  Congregation  ? 

Mr.  Allen,  of  counsel  for  Defendants,  objects  that  the  question  is  a  questior* 
of  law  to  be  decided  by  the  Statute,  and  is  immaterial.     The  Examiner  over- 


142 

rules  the  objection  and  receives  the  testimony.     According  to  the  laws  of  the 
church  the  Trustees  have  no  right  to  shut  out  a  regularly  appointed  minister, 
and  such  an  act  would  be  an  act  of  rebellion  against  the  proper  authority.    We 
view  the  Trustees   as  acting   in  the  place    of  Deacons,   and  the  Confession  of 
Faith  says  that  the  Deacons  act  in  subordination  to  the  Elders  and  in  obedience 
to  their  directions.     The  Confession  of  Faith,  page  572,  edition  of  1838,  con- 
tains a  specification  of  the   duties  of  a  Deacon.     See  also  3d  and  4th  and  5th 
pages  of  the  book  of  discipline.     The  proper  and  lawful  way  in  which  a  min- 
ister may  be  invited  to  preach,  generally  is  by  the  Pastor,  and  in  his  absence 
the  Session,  but  this  privilege    of  invitation  only  extends  to  a  day  or  two,  the 
usual  way  of  supplying  a  vacancy  is  by  Presbylerial  appointment.     See  book 
of  discipline,  page  eleven.     Neither  the  Congregation  nor  the  Trustees  have 
power  to  refuse  to  receive  a    minister  in  regular    standing,  who  has  been  ap- 
pointed by  the  Presbytery  or  Synod,  to  minister  for  a  few   Sabbaths.   See  book 
of  discipline,  page  eleven  Avhich  gives  this  power  of  appointment.     It  has  been 
the  uniform  practice  of  the  Synod  and  of  the  Presbyteries  so  to  practice,  and 
I  never  knew   an  instance  of  resistance   till  this.     Mr.  Crary,  of  counsel  for 
Complainants,  asks  the  witness  whether  a  Presbytery  in  the  Associate  Church 
has  a  right  to  recognize  and  declare  who  are  and  who  are  not  the  elders  and 
members  of  any  Congregation  in  their  bounds,  in  regular  and  good  standing, 
particularly  in  such  a  situation  as  the  Congregation  of  Cambridge  stood  on  the 
twenty-seventh  day  of  June,  in  the  year  1S38.     Mr.  Allen,  of  counsel  for  De- 
fendants, objects  that  the  testimony  is  not  within  the  isssue,   and  there  is  no- 
thino-  in  the  Bill  on  which  to  found  the  testimony,  and  that  it  is  otherwise  imma- 
terial and  irrelevant.     The  Examiner  over-rules  the  objection  and  receives  the 
testimony.    The  witness  says  he  has  no  hesitation  in  saying  that  such  a  power 
exists  in  all  presbyterial  bodies  and  in  Synod.     It  is  a  power  necessarily  implied 
in  the  powder  to  organize ;  see  book  of  discipline  on  page  11th.    There  cannot  be  a 
leo-ally  organized  Congregation  in  the  Associate  Church,  without  a  legally  or- 
oanized  Session.     A  legally  organized  Session  is  one  recognized  by  Presby- 
tery ;  see  Confession  of  Faith,  pages  575  and  576.     Mr.  Craiy,  of  counsel  for 
Complainants,  asks  Avho,  according  to  the  principles  and  practice  of  the  Asso- 
ciate Church,  has  a  right  to  vote  for  Trustees.     Question  objected  to  by  Mr. 
Allen,  of  counsel   for  Defendants,  on   the  ground  that  the   law  of  the  State 
prescribes  who  shall  vote,  and  that  it  is  not  within  the  issue.     Objection  over- 
ruled by  the  Examiner  and  the  evidence  is  received. 

The  witness  answers  that  no  person  can  vote  for  trustees,  Avho  is  not  a  mem- 
ber of  the  church,  in  full  communion  with  the  church.  Such  is  the  principle, 
hut  I  do  not  mean  to  say  that  such  is  the  uniform  practice.  Sec  confession  of 
faith  pages  564  and  572.  The  meaning  of  the  term  "  Congregation"  as  it  is 
used  in  the  books  of  the  Associate  Church,  is  members  in  full  communion 
together  Avith  their  children,  until  those  chiUlren  become  capable  of  acting  for 
.themselves.  Book  of  Discipline,  pages  3rd  and  4th,  and  also  pages  8th  and 
9th  ;  also  in  the  confession  of  faith,  pages  572  and  573.  The  term  Church 
taken  in  its  utmost  extent  denotes  the  whole  body  of  the  faithful  or  professed 
folloAvers  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  in  its  most  general  acceptation  includes 
all  denominations,  and  in  a  more  particular  sense  as  applied  to  the  Associate 
Church,  denotes  a  particular  body  of  professors  gathered  together  in  a  partic- 
ular congregation.  In  the  particular  acceptation  of  the  term  there  is^  no  <lis- 
tinction  between  the  terms  "  Church"  and  "  Congregation,"  but  in  its  broad 
sense  as  applied  to  the  body  of  the  Associate  Church,  it  means  all  the  congre- 
gations connected  with  that  body.  The  authority  for  this  is  contained  in  the 
Confession  of  Faith,  pages  563  and  564 ;  and  what   constitutes  a  particular 


143 

Congregation  is  defined  on  pages  572  and  573,  of  the  same  work  ;  and  also  in 
the  Book  of  Discipline,  pages  3  and  4  ;  see  also  149th  page  of  the  Confession 
of  Faith,  chapter  25th. 

Question  by  Mr.  Crary  of  Counsel  for  Complainants — Is  it  true  as  stated  hi 
the  fifth  and  sixth  folios  of  Defendants'  answer,  that  Mr.  E.  Erskine  and  his 
three  brethren  protested  against  the  decision  of  the  Synod  of  Perth  and  Ster- 
ling, and  appealed  to  the  first  enlightened  and  reformed  Synod,  and  was  sus- 
pended for  the  same. 

Answer — The  statement  is  not  in  accordance  with  the  facts  of  the  case;  Mr. 
Erskine  and  his  brethren  when  they  protested  against  the  deed  of  the  Synod 
of  Perth  and  Sterling,  appealed  to  the  ensuing  General  Assembly  of  the 
Church  of  Scotland.  There  Avas  no  sentence  of  suspension  inflicted  upon  them 
by  the  Synod  of  Perth  and  Sterling.  See  Gibs'  display,  vol.  1st,  page  27. 
And  it  was  not  until  after  they  declared  their  secession  from  the  General  As- 
sembly of  the  Church  of  Scotland,  that  they  appealed  to  the  "  next,  free,  faith- 
ful and  reforming  General  Assembly."     See  Gibs'  Display,  vol,   1st,  page  85. 

Question  by  Mr.  Crary  of  Counsel  for  Complainants — Is  it  true  that  the 
privilege  claimed  by  Defendants  in  the  6th  and  7th,  folios  of  their  answer  for 
the  condemned  in  their  own  case,  formed  a  foundation  and  corner  stone  prin- 
ciple of  the  Secession  Church,  and  was  adopted  by  the  Associate  Synod  of 
North  America  ? 

Answer  by  the  witness — The  first  seceders  claimed  a  right  to  judge  for  them- 
selves, they  did  not  claim  that  for  themselves,  they  had  a  right  to  remain  in  the 
General  Assembly  defying  its  decisions.  In  regard  to  the  right  of  protest,, 
they  claimed  the  privilege  of  having  their  protest  recorded  according  to  the 
laws  of  the  church,  which 'privilege  was  refused.  The  right  of  protest  is  a 
fundamental  principle  in  the  Associate  Chuich,  but  not  as  having  connected 
with  it  a  right  to  resist  the  operation  of  a  sentence  of  the  court  of  last  resort 
or  highest  court,  and  thereby  maintain  a  good  standing  in  the  church ;  see 
book  of  discipline,  page  62,  when  this  right  of  protest  is  given  to  persons  dis- 
satisfied with  the  decision,  and  nothing  further  is  given. 

Question  by  Mr.  Crary — What  constitutes  membership  in  a  Congregation  in- 
the  Associate  Church,  so  as  to  be  entitled  to  vote  for  the  officers  of  the  church,. 
or  congregation  ? 

Answer — It  requires  a  profession  of  faith  in  Christ  and  a  declared  adherence- 
to  the  Westminster  confession  of  faith,  the  larger  and  shorter  catechisms,  the' 
form  of  church  government,  directory  for  public  worship  of  God,  as  those  are 
received  and  witnessed  for  in  the  judicial  declaration  and  testimony  of  the 
Associate  Church,  and  require  also  a  promise  of  continued  adherence  to  this 
profession  in  all  its  parts  and  of  submission  to  the  authority  of  the  courts  of 
of  the  church;  Reference  to  pages  167  and  168  of  the  testimony.  It  is  also- 
necessary  that  they  should  be  admitted  by  the  Session  of  the  Church.  See- 
page seven,  of  the  Book  of  Discipline. 

And  I  would  further  state  to  open  up  a  full  view  of  the  admission  of  mem- 
bers to  the  Associate  Church,  that  while  forbearance  is  to  be  exercised  in  re-- 
spect  to  the  weakness  of  some  persons  not  having  clear  views  in  regard  to  par- 
ticular points  of  this  profession,  but  having  their  minds  open  to  conviction  and 
instruction  on  the  subject,  they  may  be  admitted  to  fellowship,  but  none  who 
declare  a  decided  opposition  to  any  one  point  of  our  profession  can  be  admitted 
to  the  fellowship  of  the  Church.  I  would  refer  to  the  declaration  and  testimo- 
ny page  112. 

Question  by  Mr.  Crary — Is  it  true  that  the  minister  and  Elders,  have  no 
control  over  the  temporalities  of  a  Congregation,  according  to  the  professed 


114 

principles  of  the  AssociutG  Cluirch.  Objected  to  by  Mr.  Allen,  on  the  ground 
that  it  is  iinmat(Mi;vl  and  irrelevant,  and  not  wilhin  the  issue.  The  objection 
is  over-ruled  and  the  witnesses  states  that  the  minister  and  eiders  have  a  control 
over  the  temporalities  of  the  Chnrch,  and  the  disposal  of  its  funds.  See  book 
of  Discipline  page  5th,  teaches  that  these  things  are  to  be  disposed  of  accord- 
ing to  the  direction  of  the  session. 

(Question  by  Mr.  Crary: — In  whom  is  the  control  and  management  of  the 
temporalities  of  a  Congregation  invested,  according  to  the  principles  and  dis- 
cipline of  the  Associate  Church. 

Answer — In  the  Deacons,  or  Trustees  who  are  a  substitute  for  Deacons,  ac- 
ting under  the  direction  of  the  Session.     See  book  of  Discipline  page  fifth. 

Question  by  Mr.  Crary — An  the  Defendants  in  their  answers,  assert,  fol.  17, 
that  the  officers  of  the  Church  have  no  control  over  any  but  members  in  full 
communion.  Whether  or  not  it  would  be  unreasonable  that  they  should  be  al- 
lowed to  vote  for  sucli  officers!  And  Avould  not  such  a  practice  be  contrary  to 
the  principles  and  practice  of  the  Associate  Church?  Mr.  Allen  of  counsel 
for  Defendants  objects  to  this  question,  on  the  grounds:  that  he  cannot  state 
what  is  reasonable  or  unreasonable,  and  Mr.  Crary  omits  that  part  of  the  ques- 
tion. 

Answer — Such  a  practice  is  contrary  to  the  practice  and  principles  of  the 
Associate  Church.  No  person  can  be  so  admitted  who  is  not  a  member  in  full 
communion  with  the  church.  I  would  refer  to  the  book  of  Discipline  pages  3 
and  4.     Also  page  18  of  the  same  book. 

Question  by  Mr.  Crary : — What  express  declaration  did  the  Associate  Synod 
•of  North  America  make  in  1840,  of  their  principles  and  usages  respecting  who 
'swere  elligible  to  the  office  of  Trustee  in  any  Congregation  of  the  Associate 
'Church?  Question  of  Mr.  Crary  objected  to  by  Mr.  Allen,  as  immaterial  be- 
cause the  ecclesiastical  power  in  this  Country  cannot  repeal  a  law  of  this  State. 
Objection  over-ruled  by  the  Examiner  because  the  question  does  not  ask  rela- 
'tive  to  the  law,  but  only  as  to  the  practices  and  usages  of  the  Church. 

Answer — They  declared  in  answer  to  a  question  put  them  on  the  subject, 
that  no  person  was  elligible  to  the  office  of  Trustee  according  to  the  principles 
and  usages  of  the  Associate  Church,  except  such  as  were  members  in  full  com- 
munion. This  decision  will  be  found  in  the  minutes  of  Synod  for  the  year 
1840  page  twenty  three.  Mr.  Allen  objects  that  parole  evidence  is  not  admis- 
sible. Mr.  Crary  then  produces  a  printed  copy  of  the  minutes  of  Synod  for  the 
year  1840,  and  the  witness  states  that  the  book  contains  a  true  statement  of 
the  proceedings  of  Synod.  That  he  was  present  at  the  session  of  Synod  for 
1840.     This  pamphlet  is  produced  by  Complainants  and  marked  as  Exhibit 

Question  by  Mr.  Crary — Is  it  true  as  stated  in  folios  twenty  one  and  twenty 
two  of  Defendants'  answer  that  a  protest  and  appeal  by  the  accused  arrests 
or  sists  all  further  proceedings  in  the  case  ? 

Answer — If  the  court  below  admits  a  protest  when  offered  it  stays  their  pro- 
ceedure  and  carries  the  cause  up  to  the  next  higher  court,  but  they  have  the 
power  if  they  see  cause  to  reject  the  protest  and  proceed  to  issue  the  case. 
Book  of  Discipline,  page  60,  is  a  reference  to  show  this. 

Question  by  Mr.  Crary. — Has  a  Presbytery  the  right  to  interfere  and  redress 
any  grievances  that  may  arise  in  any  Congregation  in  their  bounds? 

Answer — They  have  such  right  expressly  given  to  them  in  the  book  of  dis- 
cipline, page  eleven. 

Question  by  Mr.  Crary — Is  a  Congregation  accountable  to  their  Presbyte- 
ry for  insubordination  to  their  decisions,  or  for  any  departure  from  the  doctrine, 
discipline  or  government  of  the  Church? 


145 

Answer — Their  responsibility  is  necessarily  implied  in  the  right  to  redress 
grievances  given  to  the  Presbytery,  and  also  the  due  subordination  of  Church 
courts,  according  to  the  Presbyterial  form  of  Church  government ;  such  is  also 
the  universal  practice  of  the  Presbyteries  of  the  Associate  Church. 

Question — Has  the  Presbytery  original  jurisdiction  over  the  Congregations 
within  its  bounds,  and  are  the  decisions  in  folios  26,  27,  28  and  29,  of  Defen- 
dants' answer,  contrary  to  the  form  of  Presbyterial  Cluirch  government,  and 
the  principles  thereof?  Question  objected  to  by  Mr.  Allen,  of  counsel  for  De- 
fendants, on  the  grounds, — first  :  that  there  is  no  such  answer  remaining  on  the 
files  of  the  court,  because  that  part  of  the  answer  w^as  made  to  an  amendment 
incorporated  in  the  supplemental  bill  which  has  been  dismissed  on  demurrer, 
and  the  testimony  is  therefore  irrelevant.  Second  :  That  there  is  no  founda- 
tion for  the  testimony  in  the  original  bill.  The  question  is  then  abandoned  by 
Mr.  Crary  for  the  present. 

Question — Whether  any,  and  what  jurisdiction  has  Presbytery  over  the  Con- 
gregations under  its  care  ? 

Answer — Presbytery  has  both  original  and  appelate  jurisdiction  over  all  the 
Congregations  under  their  care.  Book  of  discipline,  page  1 1.  The  Presby- 
tery judges  of  the  regularity  of  the  organization  of  a  Congregation,  and  up- 
on finding  this  organization  to  be  regular,  declares  said  congregation  to  be  one 
under  the  care  and  inspection  of  Presbytery  ;  and  also  the  power  as  a  neces- 
sary consequence  of  this  to  declare  a  Congregation  that  refuses  to  submit  to 
their  decisions  and  authority  to  be  no  longer  under  their  care  ;  in  other  w^ords, 
to  annul  their  relation,  and  to  declare  them  out  of  the  fellowship  of  the  Church. 
Such  an  exercise  of  jurisdiction,  respects  the  Congregation  as  a  body,  and  not 
particular  individuals.  See  the  doctrine  as  laid  down  on  page  11  of  the  book 
of  discipline.  Presbytery  has  the  power  of  determining  all  complaints  brought 
by  appeal,  reference  or  otherwise  from  the  Sessions  of  the  different  Congrega- 
tions under  their  charge.     This  is  their  appellate  jurisdiction. 

Question — What  further  powers  has  a^ Presbytery  over  a  Session,  or  part  of 
a  Session,  or  the  majority  of  a  Session  who  continues  insubordinate  to  Pres- 
bytery and  Synod?  Mr.  Allen  objects  to  the  question,  because  it  is  irrelevant 
and  immaterial,  and  not  within  the  issue.     Objection  over-ruled. 

Answer — In  case  a  Session  or  a  majority  of  a  Session,  neglect  or  refuse  to 
perform  their  proper  duty,  the  Presbytery  may  take  order  to  compel  perform- 
ance of  this,  and  if  a  Session  or  a  majority  of  a  Session,  set  themselves  in 
opposition  to,  or  resist  the  decision  of  Superior  Courts,  the  Presbytery  may 
suspend  or  declare  to  be  out  of  the  fellowship  of  the  Church,  the  Session  or 
the  majority  of  it,  as  the  case  may  be ;  and  to  recognize  the  minority,  contin- 
uing subordinate  as  the  lawful  and  regular  Session  of  such  Congregation.  This 
power  is  absolutely  necessary  in  order  to  redress  what  evils  may  arise  in  a 
Congregation,  where  a  majority  of  a  Session,  or  the  whole  Session  either  re- 
fuse to  perform  their  duties,  or  place  themselves  in  opposition  to  the  decisions 
of  the  Superior  Courts.  Reference  to  page  11,  of  the  book  of  discipline. 
The  Presbytery  have  the  power  also  of  directing  the  Session,  recognized  as 
above,  to  proceed  and  deal  with  the  members  of  the  Session  and  the  Congre- 
gation, who  have  been  declared  by  the  general  act  of  the  Presbytery  to  be  not 
in  good  standing  in  the  Associate  Church. 

Question — Has  the  S\mod  the  power  and  right  to  suspend  or  dissolve  as  the 
case  may  require,  any  Presbytery  imder  their  jurisdiction,  for  just  and  lawful 
cause.     Question  objected  to  by  Mr.  Allen  as  not  within  the  issue. 

Answer — Synod  has  the  power  of  dissolving  or  suspending  a  Presbytery 
for  just  and  lawful  cause  ;    the  power  of  erecting,  implies  the  power  of  dis- 
19 


146 

solving,  and  also  the  power  of  redrcssiiitr  whntcver  is  done  contrary  to  order. 
The  book  of  discipline  makes  it  the  duty  of  hJynod  to  take  cfrectual  care  tiial 
the  Inferior  Courts  act  in  conformity  to  the  rules  and  principles  of  action  whiclx 
are  made  for  the  benefit  of  Presbyteries  and  Churches.  See  book  of  disci- 
pline, pages  12  and  13.  A  Presbytery  having  been  suspended,  the  ministerial 
members  and  Congregations  belonging  to  that  Presbytery  must  necessarily  be 
placed  by  the  Synod  under  the  care  of  some  other  Presbytery,  otherwise  the 
regular  gradation  of  courts  in  that  particular  part  of  the  Church  would  for  the 
time  being  be  destroyed,  contrary  to  what  is  asserted  in  the  book  of  discipline, 
page  6. 

Question  by  Mr.  Crary — Did  the  Synod  declare  the  deed  of  the  Presbytery 
of  Vermont,  in  attempting  to  restore  Alexander  Bullions,  to  be  null  and  void 
from  the  beginning  ? 

Answer — They  did  so  by  a  very  strong  vote  ;  see  minutes  of  Synod  for 
1839,  page  29th. 

Question  by  Mr.  Crary — Did  the  first  report  of  Presbytery  of  Vermont  to 
Synod  in  May,  1839,  contain  the  evidence  of  their  censurable  decision,  restor- 
ing Alexander  Bullions,  and  of  their  unfitness  to  be  trusted  with  the  manage- 
ment of  Presbytery?  Question  objected  to  by  Mr.  Allen,  because  it  is  by  pa- 
role and  not  by  the  minutes — minutes  produced  and  objection  withdrawn  ;  on 
page  18  of  the  minutes  of  1839,  will  be  found  the  report  of  Presbytery  of 
Vermont  to  Synod  ;  on  pages  27  and  28,  also  on  page  29  will  be  found  the 
whole  order  of  Synod  relative  to  this  report.  The  evidence  of  the  facts  con- 
tained in  this  report  was  before  Synod  at  the  time  the  Synod  suspended  the 
Presbytery  of  Vermont  from  Presbyterial  action,  and  cited  them  to  appear  at 
the  next  meeting  of  Synod  to  answer  for  said  offence.  The  Synod  had  ac- 
knowledged, and  sufficient  power  to  do  this.  See  book  of  discipline,  page 
60 — entitled  "  Of  suspensions  for  trial."  And  also  the  duty  of  Synod  to  take 
effectual  care  that  subordinate  courts  perform  their  duties.  Book  of  discipline, 
page  twelve.  Suspension  for  trial  is  not  viewed  as  a  censure.  Book  of  dis- 
cipline, page  56. 

Question — Was  or  was  net  Alexander  Bullions  justly  deposed,  according  to 
the  word  of  God,  and  the  received  and  acknowledged  standards  of  the  Asso- 
ciate Church  ? 

Answer — He  was  so  deposed.  He  was  regularly  tried  on  a  relevant  charge 
and  deposed  after  being  found  guilty  by  his  own  Presbytery,  and  their  sen- 
tence was  confirmed  by  the  Synod. 

Question  by  Mr.  Crary — Is  it  true,  that  according  to  the  principles  of  the 
Associate  Church,  or  any  other  Presbyterian  Church,  a  Congregation  or  a  ma- 
jority of  them,  or  their  Pastor  have  a  right  to  decide  on  the  justice  of  a  sen- 
tence of  excommunication  or  deposition,  so  as  to  set  aside  the  same,  and  still 
continue  a  Congregation  in  connection  with  said  Church,  as  set  forth  in  De- 
fendants' answer,  folios  55  and  56  ? 

Answer — Such  is  not  the  case.  They  have  not  such  power  or  right  as 
claimed.  Declaration  and  testimony,  page  127.  Mr.  Crary  then  produces  a 
book,  known  as  the  "Declaration  and  Testimony,  fifth  edition  ;  Albany :  printed 
by  Webster  &  Wood,  1828,"  which  the  witness  says  is  a  correct  edition,  as  is 
also  the  narrative  prefixed  thereto.  Which  book  is  marked  as  Exhibit  E,  on 
the  part  of  Complainants. 

Question — Is  or  is  not  adherence  to  a  legally  deposed  minister  by  a  Con- 
gregation, a  virtual  restoration  of  him  to  his  office  ?     Question  objected  to  by 
Mr.  Allen.     Mr.  Crary  waives  the  question. 
Question — Is  oy  is  not  such  adherence  a  virtual  renunciation  of  the  authori- 


147 

ly  of  Church  courts,  and  of  Presbyterian  Churcli  Government?  Mr.  Allen 
objects  to  the  question  as  calling  for  the  opinion  of  the  witness,  and  as  being 
mere  matter  of  argument.     Objection  over-ruled. 

Answer — It  is  such.  A  Congregation  cannot  regularly  call  or  employ  any 
one  to  be  their  minister  but  through  the  Presbytery,  who  have  power  to  deter- 
mine whether  the  call  shall  be  sustained  and  presented  or  not.  Book  of  dis- 
cipline, pages  IS,  19,  20  and  21 ;  also  on  page  22.  It  is  understood  in  our 
Courts,  that  when  power  is  located  in  particular  bodies,  or  persons,  it  is  taken 
away  from  all  others. 

Question — Is  this  the  present  situation  of  those  who  now  adhere  to  Dr.  Bul- 
lions ? 

Answer — Such  is  their  present  situation.  They  are  acting  contrary  to  Pres- 
byterial  Church  order,  and  in  defiance  of  it. 

Question — According  to  the  principles  of  the  Associate  Church,  has  a  Con- 
gregation under  their  inspection  a  right  to  select  any  other  than  a  minister  in 
good  standing  in  said  Church  ? 
Answer — They  have  not. 

Question — Is  any  and  every  departure  from  the  doctrines,  discipline,  gov- 
ernment and  worship  of  the  Associate  Church,  considered  by  them  material? 
Answer — Every  part  of  the  profession  we  make,  is  considered  by  us  as  ma- 
terial, so  that  no  person  who  is  a  decided  opponent  to  any  point  in  that  profes- 
sion can  be  admitted  to  the  fellowship  of  the  Church. 

Question — Is  the  consientious  belief  of  preacher  or  hearer  the  standard  of 
faith  in  the  Associate  Church? 

Answer — The  supreme  standard  of  faith  in  the  Associate  Church,  is  the 
word  of  God.  See  first  chapter,  of  the  confession  of  faith,  page  25.  Also  in 
the  declaration  and  testimony,  pages  72  and  117,  and  the  confession  of  faith, 
itself  contains  a  declaration  of  how  we  receive  or  understand  the  word  of  God. 
Question — Who  are  the  constituted  judges,  in  matters  of  faith  and  disci- 
pline in  the  Associate  Church? 

Answer — Presbyteries  and  the  Synod.  Testimony,  page  126.  Book  of  dis- 
cipline, pages  11,  12,  13,  21,  and  22. 

Question — Has  a  Presbytery  or  Synod  according  to  the  powers  invested  in 
such  courts  by  the  Associate  Church,  the  right  to  declare  the  Congregation  of 
a  deposed  minister  vacant,  without  the  consent  of  said  Congregation  ? 

Answer — They  have  that  power.  See  book  of  discipline,  page  56.  Also 
Stewart's  collection,  page  219.  The  question  and  answer  objected  to  by  Mr. 
Allen,  as  not  within  the  issue,  and  received  by  the  examiner. 

Question — Is  a  withdrawing  from  the  ministrations  of  ministers  regularly 
appointed  to  supply  in  a  Congregation  by  their  Presbytery,  a  renunciation  of 
their  authority?  The  question  objected  to  as  irrelevant  and  not  within  the  is- 
sue. 

Answer — It  is.  As  the  Presbytery  have  the  power  of  appointing  a  dispen- 
sation of  the  gospel  ordinances  in  vacant  Congregations.     Book  of  discipline^ 

Question — Have  the  Defendants  in  this  suit  thus  withdrawn  from  divme  or- 
dinances? Mr.  Allen  objects  to  this  in  same  manner  as  to  the  last  question, 
and  for  the  same  reasons. 

Answer — I  consider  that  they  have. 

Question— Have  you  ever  read  the  bills  of  complaint  of  the  complainants  in 
this  cause,  both  original  and  supplemental  ? 

Answer — I  have. 

Question — Is  the  doctrines  and  discipline  of  the  Associate  Church,  truly  rep- 
resented in  those  bills,  as  far  as  the  same  are  set  forth? 


148 

Answer — I  consider  tliat  on  the  points  adverted  to  in  those  bills  they  contain 
a  true  exhibition  of  the   principles   and  discipline   of  the   Associatv;    Church. 

Question — Have  you  ever  read  the  Defendants'  answers  to  those  bills? 

Answer — I  have  read  them. 

Question — Is  the  doctrines  and  discipline  of  the  Associate  Church  correctly 
and  trul}'  set  forth  in  those  answers? 

Answer — I  should  say  that  in  matters  wherein  the  answers  contradict  the 
original  and  supplemental  bills  they  do  not.  Mr.  Allen  of  counsel  for  Defend- 
ants objects  that  they  have  nothing  to  do  with  the  supplemental  bill,  and  that 
the  answer  to  the  (juestion  is  general,  being  to  the  entire  contents  of  a  bill. 

Question — Can  the  Church  judicatories  of  the  Associate  Church,  do  any 
thing  more  against  any  offender,  than  pronounce  the  higher  sentence  of  ex- 
communication ? 

Answer — The  "  greater  excommunication"  is  the  last  step  the  Associate 
Church  Courts  can  take  in  the  exercise  of  discipline.  See  book  of  discipline, 
page  57;  Stewart's  collections,  pages  219,  220  and  221. 

Question — According  to  the  doctrines  of  the  Associate  Church,  are  the  dif- 
ferent judicatories  bound  to  forgive  any  offender  as  often  as  repentance  and 
submission  are  made  and  forgiveness  desired  ? 

Answer — They  are  bound  to  restore  an  offender  in  all  such  cases,  in  the 
spirit  of  meekness,  unless  there  be  circumstances  Avhich  justly  render  his  sin- 
cerity in  submission  questionable.     See  book  of  discipline,  page  58. 

Question — In  the  course  of  this  examination,  you  have  answered  questions 
and  made  references  to  the  standards  of  the  Church  in  support  of  them,  do 
you  know  of  any  other  references  in  those  standards,  w^iich  would  vary  your 
answers  ? 

Answer — I  do  not  know  of  any. 

Question — Are  the  books  referred  to  by  you  in  the  course  of  j'our  deposi- 
tion, standard  works  in  the  Associate  Church  ? 

Answer — The  Confession  of  Faith,  the  Testimon}^  and  the  Book  of  Disci- 
pline, are  standard  works  in  the  Associate  Church.  Also  the  form  of  process, 
commencing  at  page  203  of  Stewart's  collections,  and  that  the  collections 
themselves,  in  as  far  as  they  set  forth  discipline,  in  a  spiritual  point  of  view,  arc 
authority  in  the  Associate  Church,  unless  it  is  otherwise  expressly  provided  in 
our  Book  of  Discipline.  Gibs'  Display  is  also  a  standard  work  in  the  As- 
sociate Church.  There  has  been  but  one  edition  of  Gibs'  Display.  JVIr.  Cra- 
ry  produces  a  copy  of  this  work  which  the  witness  identifies  as  being  a  correct 
copy,  and  which  is  marked  as  Exhibit  F.  Mr.  Crary  then  produces,  on  part 
of  Complainants,  a  copy  of  the  Confession  of  Faith,  which  the  witness  iden- 
tifies as  being  a  correct  copy,  and  which  is  made  Exhibit  G,  on  the  part  of 
Complainants. 

Question — Are  the  Church  judicatories  bound  to  restore  an  offender  to  an 
office,  Avho  makes  such  submission  as  is  satisfactory  to  the  court  ? 

Answer — They  are  not  in  all  cases.  The  court  may  restore  a  person  to  the 
fellowship  of  the  Church  upon  his  submission,  when  edification  would  forbid 
his  restoration  to  office.     See  Book  of  Discipline,  page  59. 

JOHN  G.  SMART. 

Sworn,  examined  and  subscrib- 
ed this  Sth  day  of  September, 
i-n  the  year  1841,  before  me, 

JaMES  GIBSON,  Examiner  in  Chancers/. 


IN   CHANCERY. 


William  Stevenson,  et  al. 

vs. 
Alexander  Bullions,  et  al 


John  G.  Smart,  a  witness  produced  on  part  of  the  Complainants  in  this 
cause,  and  examined  by  Mr.  Crary  of  counsel  for  the  Complainants,  and  being 
now  cross-examined  by  Mr.  Allen  of  counsel  for  the  Defendants,  deposeth 
as  follows,  viz : — The  narrative  prefixed  to  the  declaration  and  testimony  is  an 
accurate  history  of  the  rise  &c.  of  the  Associate  Church.  The  sixth  chapter 
of  that  narrative  contains  I  believe,  a  correct  history  of  the  rise  of  the  Seces- 
sion Church.  The  ninth  chapter  entitled  of  the  union  which  produced  the 
Associate  Reformed  Synod,  is  also  a  correct  history,  as  also  the  tenth  chapter. 
The  15th  and  17th,  articles  on  pages  68,  and  69,  of  the  declaration  and  testi- 
mony are  of  equal  authority  with  any  part  of  that  work;  so  also  is  the  first 
article  on  the  72ond  page  of  that  work.  The  Holy  Scriptures  is  the  only  su- 
preme rule  of  faith  and  obedience  in  the  Associate  Church  !  In  the  admission 
of  members,  an  adherence  to  the  Westminster  Confession  of  Faith  and  Cat- 
echism, and  the  directory  form  of  Church  Government,  and  the  testimony 
must  be  received  by  the  applicant  as  exhibiting  his  views  of  what  is  contain- 
ed in  the  word  of  God.  Members  of  the  church  and  ministers  are  bound  to 
submit  to  all  the  decisions  of  the  courts,  if  they  wish  to  remain  in  the  fellow- 
ship of  the  Church,  and  I  would  add  that  the  supposition,  or  even  the  convic- 
tion of  the  individual,  that  he  is  right,  does  not  give  him  a  right  to  remain  in 
the  Church,  resisting  the  authority  of  its  courts. 

Mr.  Allen  asks,  if  members  of  the  Church  or  ministers  are  bound  to  submit 
to  church  courts,  right  or  wrong  ? 

Anwer — No  church  member  is  bound  to  submit  to  a  decision  that  is  wrong, 
but  as  the  word  of  God  and  our  books  point  us  to  no  tribunal  in  the  visible 
Church,  for  the  determination  of  the  issue  which  would  arise  between  the  in- 
dividual and  the  court  of  last  resort,  in  such  a  case  there  is  no  relief  for  him, 
but  either  quietly  to  withdraw  or  submit,  leaving  it  to  the  Head  of  the  Church 
in  His  Providence  to  clear  up  his  character.  The  appeal  in  such  case  would 
not  be  to  the  word  of  God.  We  admit  that  church  courts  may  err — there  is 
no  doubt  that  they  have    erred. 

Question  by  Mr.  Allen — If  a  Church  court  clearly  errs  in  deposing  a  mem- 
ber or  inflicting  punishment  upon  him,  is  he  bound  to  submit  to  such  judgment 
under  the  conclusion  that  it  is  a  Providence  of  God  ? 

Answer — I  should  say  that  if  he  finds  his  Avay  so  shut  up  that  he  can  not  go 
forth  of  the  body,  it  would  in  such  case  be  his  duty  to  commit  the  matter  to 
the  Providence  of  the  Head  of  the  Church.  No  man  can  remain  in  the  church 
resisting  the  operation  of  its  decrees. 

Question — If  a  member  is  judged  or  proceeded  against  without  regard  to 
the  rules  of  discipline  and  proceedure  of  the  church,  is  he  bound  to  submit  to 
the  decision  of  the  court.  Mr.  Crary  objects  to  the  cpiestion  because  it  is  sup- 
posing a  case  that  is  not  in  issue,  and  not  in  proof,  and  is  irrelevant  and  im- 
proper. 

Answer — I  should  say  if  such  case  existed  he  was  not ;  but  that  we  consid- 
er such  a  case  not  at  all  supposable,  that  a  court  would  proceed  contrary  to  all 


150 

rule  of  order.  I  have  never  known  an  Associate  Clinrch  court  set  aside  its  own 
rules  of  proceedurc.  I  was  not  present  at  the  trial  of  Dr.  Bullions  before  the 
Presbytery  of  Cambridge,  nor  at  any  part  of  their  proceedings.  What  I  have 
said  is  merely  of  the  proceedings  before  Synod  The  whole  proceedings  of  the 
Presbytery  of  Cambridge  were  brought  in  review  before  Synod.  All  the 
members  present  at  a  meeting  of  Presbytery  arc  entitled  to  a  vote,  if  in  good 
standing,  and  no  valid  objection  is  interposed  to  their  voting.  It  is  not  accor- 
ding to  the  principles  and  discipline  of  the  church,  that  the  accuser  should 
vote  on  the  guilt  or  innocence  of  a  person  accused.  But  in  the  case  of  a  court 
judging  it  necessary  to  enter  a  process  against  one  of  its  members,  such  pro- 
cess does  not  incapacitate  the  coiu't  from  voting  on  the  case  ;  nor  does  it  inca- 
pacitate a  member,  who  is  the  principal  witness  against  the  accused,  from  sit- 
ting on  the  court.  See  book  of  discipline,  pages  51  and  52.  There  is  such  a 
thing  as  a  lawful  declinature  by  a  minister  to  his  Presbytery.  Stewart's  col- 
lections, title  fifth,  section  ninth,  of  book  fourth,  on  pages  194  and  195.  The 
form  of  citation  will  be  found  on  the  65th  and  6Gth  pages  of  the  book  of  dis- 
cipline. Synod  exercise  the  right  of  imposing  a  minister  upon  the  congrega- 
tion without  consulting  them  to  ascertain  whether  they  are  willing  or  not. 

Question — Has  Synod  the  right  to  impose  a  minister  on  any  congregation 
occa;sionally,  statedly  or  permanently  against  the  wishes  and  without  the  con- 
cent of  the  congregation.  Mr.  Crary  objects  to  this  question  because  it  is 
merely  hypothetical,  and  is  immaterial  and  irrelevant.  Objection  over-ruled 
by  the  examiner  and  the  evidence  received. 

The  Synod  have  no  power  to  settle  or  fix  a  minister  permanently,  nor  has 
any  Presbytery  the  power  of  doing  it  but  upon  the  call  of  the  congregation  ; 
but  as  it  respects  the  supply  or  occupancy  of  a  pulpit  for  a  short  time  the 
courts  do  not  feel  themselves  bound,  nor  have  they  an  opportunity  of  consult- 
ing the  wishes  of  the  people  on  the  subject.  Our  plan  of  supplying  pulpits  is 
to  give  all  vacant  congregations  an  opportunity  of  having  all  our  licentiates  and 
such  ordained  ministers  as  are  travelling  under  our  charge,  that  they  may  out 
of  those  they  hear,  select  one  for  their  pastor.  If  the  Synod  or  Presbytery 
saw  fit  to  do  so,  the  book  of  discipline  gives  the  power  to  send  a  minister  in 
good  standing  in  the  Associate  Church,  to  a  congregation  against  its  wishes 
and  consent,  they  have  power  to  do  so.  Book  of  discipline,  page  eleven.  The 
Associate  Synod  and  the  Presbyteries  so  far  as  I  know,  never  disregard  the 
wishes  of  Congregations  when  they  know  that  wish,  and  can  avoid  disregard- 
ing it.  This  objection  is  confined  to  particular  persons  if  made  to  the  whole 
body  of  ministers.      Sj'nod  would  consider  it  an  act  of  secession. 

Question — If  the  Synod  appoint  a  minister  without  consulting  the  congre- 
gation, to  preach  to  them,  are  they  bound  to  receive  the  minister  so  sent  into 
their  pulpit,  against  their  wishes  and  consent  ? 

Answer — They  are  so  bound,  and  the  refusal  to  do  so  would  be  an  act  of 
insubordination.  In  support  of  this  I  would  refer  again  to  page  eleven  of  the 
Book  of  Discipline,  which  confers  the  power  to  make  these  appointments. 
My  testimony  relative  to  the  difference  between  Mr.  Erskine's  case  and  that  of 
Dr.  Bullions,  is  given  upon  knowledge  derived  from  the  history  of  the  Seces- 
sion Church.  1  am  the  son-in-law  of  William  Stevenson  one  of  the  Complain- 
ants in  this  cause. 

Question — Were  you  interrogated  by  the  counsel  of  Complainants  this  day 
from  a  series  of  written  questions  ? 

Answer  I  believe  many  of  them  were  so  written  and  several  were  not.  Mr. 
Crary  objects  to  the  last  question,  because  it  is  irrelevant,  immaterial  and  im- 
proper, and  because  the  manner,  if  the  examination  was  directed  by  the  couk- 


151 

sel  for  Complainants  and  the  Complainants  were  directed  by  their  counsel  to 
have  the  witness  prepared  to  refer  to  the  standards  of  the  Associate  Church, 
in  support  of  the  testimony. 

Question — Did  you  assist  in  preparing  those  questions  ? 

Answer — I  did  not,  nor  any  of  them  ;  the  questions  were  some  of  them  sub- 
mitted to  me  previous  to  this  examination.  I  prepared  written  references  on 
the  points  to  which  I  have  been  examined,  at  the  request  of  Mr.  Robertson  one 
of  the  Complainants,  to  the  Standards  of  our  Church.  I  am  the  person  refer- 
red to  in  the  minutes  of  Synod  for  1839,  and  am  the  person  mentioned  therein 
as  voting  on  various  questions  which  arose  during  the  session.  The  John 
Robertson  mentioned  in  the  minutes  of  Synod  for  1839,  as  being  assumed  by 
Synod  as  a  member,  is  the  same  person  mentioned  in  the  bill  of  Complaint  as 
one  of  the  Complainants,  and  who  appears  as  having  voted  on  the  various  ques- 
tions which  arose  before  Synod.  He  is  the  same  person  who  appears  as  voting 
on  page  twenty  nine,  of  the  minutes  of  Synod  for  1839.  He  is  also  the  same 
person  mentioned  on  page  fifty  five  of  the  minutes  of  that  year.  A  vacant 
Congregation  cannot  appoint  an  elder  a  member  of  Synod  but  Synod  may  as- 
sume him  and  he  will  then  be  a  member. 

JOHN  G.  SMART. 

Sworn,  examined  and  subscrib-  ) 
ed,  before  me,  this  8th  day  of  > 
Sept.,  in  the  year  1841,  ) 

JAMES  GIBSON,  Exammer  in  Chancery. 


IN    CHANCERY 


William  Stevenson,  et  al, 

vs. 
Alexander  Bullions,  et  al. 


John  G.  Smart,  a  witness  already  produced  on  the  part  of  the  Cojnplainaiits 
in  the  above  entitled  cause,  and  examined  therein  b^  Mr.  Crary  of  counsel  for 
said  Complainants,  and  cross-examined  by  Mr.  Allen  of  counsel  for  Defendants, 
and  now  re-examined  by  Mr.  Crary  deposeth  as  follows,  viz  :  John  Robertson 
had  a  legal  right  to  vote  in  the  Synod  of  1839. 

Question — Did  the  sitting  of  Messrs.  Miller,  Anderson,  and  John  Robert- 
son, in  the  casB  of  Alexander  Bullions  in  Cambridge  Presbytery,  disqualify 
them  from  acting  and  voting  in  Synod,  in  the  case  of  the  Vermont  Presbytery? 
Mr.  Allen  objects  to  this  question  on  the  grounds  that  it  is  not  within  the  issue, 
and  is  immaterial  ar.d  irrelevant.  Objection  over-ruled  and  evidence  received. 
Answer — It  did  not  disqualify  them,  as  neither  they  nor  Dr.  Bullions  were 
parties  to  the  case.  ! 

JOHN  G.  SMART. 
Sworn,  examined,  and  subscrib-  ') 
.  ed  this  8th  day  of  September,  > 
in  the  year  1841,  before  me,     )  ^  • 

JAMES  GIBSON,  Examiner  in  Chancery. 


IN   CHANCERY, 

B  E  !■  O  K  E     T  11  K     O  II  A  N  C  E  L  L  O  K  . 


William  Stevenson,  et  al,      ) 

vs.  >     Deposition  of  James  LorniE. 

Alexander  Bullions,  et  al.    ) 


Deposition  of  James  Lourie,  a  witness  produced  on  the  part  of  the  Com- 
plainants, sworn  and  examined  in  a  certain  cause  now  pending  in  the  Court 
of  Chancery  of  the  State  of  New  York,  before  the  Chancellor  of  said  State, 
wherein  William  Stevenson,  William  McGeoch,  Edward  Small,  John  McAr- 
thur,  James  McArthur,  Robert  McArthur,  Peter  McArthiir,  George  Small, 
James  Arnot,  John  Arnot,  Edward  Cook,  John  Robertson,  Thomas  AlcMorris, 
James  Hoy,  John  McDoul,  Isaac  Ashton,  John  Foster  and  William  Livings- 
ton, members  of  the  Church,  in  full  communion,  known  as  the  Associate 
Congregation  of  Cam.bridge,  of  the  County  of  Washington,  and  State  of  New 
York,  adhering  to  the  principles  of  the  Associate  Presbytery  of  Pennsylvania 
formerly,  now  the  Associate  Synod  of  North  America,  are  Complainants,  and 
Alexander  Bullions,  James  Shiland,  Robert  McClelland,  Peter  Hill,  Trustees 
of  the  Associate  Congregation  of  Cambridge,  of  the  County  of  Washington, 
adhering  to  the  principles  of  the  Associate  Presbytery  of  Pennsylvania  former- 
ly, now  the  Associate  Synod  of  North  America,  are  Defendants,  on  the  part  of 
the  said  Complainants,  before  James  Gibson,  one  of  the  Examiners  in  Chan- 
cery of  said  State,  at  the  House  of  Chester  Safford,  Jr.,  in  the  town  of  Salem, 
in  said  County  of  Washington,  commencing  on  the  seventeenth  day  of  Febru- 
ary, in  the  year  of-our  Lord  one  thousand  eight  hundred  and  forty-two,  as 
follows,  viz  : 

James  Lourie,  a  witness  produced  on  the  part  of  said  Complainants,  in  the 
above  entitled  cause,  on  being  called  is  objected  to  by  Mr.  Allen  of  counsel  for 
Defendants,  on  the  following  grounds,  viz: — First:  That  he  is  in  fact  one  of 
the  Complainants  in  this  cause,  being  one  of  the  minority  composed  of  Com- 
plainants and  others,  who  claim  to  be  the  Associate  Congregation  of  Cam- 
bridge. Second  :  That  he  is  directly  interested  in  the  event  of  this  suit,  as, 
if  this  suit  is  decided  in  favor  of  Complainants,  the  Church  building  and 
property  at  present  occupied  by  Defendants,  and  which  forms  the  principal 
ground  of  dispute,  will  go,  or  be  claimed  by  Complainants  to  go  to  Complain- 
ants and  their  adherents,  of  which  he  is  one.  Mr.  Clark  of  counsel  for  Com- 
plainants, denies  that  the  witness  produced  is  in  any  way  interested,  or  is  one 
of  the  Complainants.  That  at  the  time  of  the  commencement  of  this  suit, 
and  long  since,  he  was  an  adherent  of  Alexander  Bullions,  and  that  he  is  in 
no  way  connected  with  the  Complainants  in  the  prosecution  of  this  suit.  Mr. 
Allen  of  counsel  for  Defendants,  requires  that  the  witness  should  be  sworn  on 
his  voir  dire,  whereupon  the  said  James  Lourie  produced  as  a  Avitness  on  the^ 
part  of  the  Complainants  in  this  cause,  and  being  objected  toby  Mr.  Allen  of 
counsel  for  Defendants,  being  duly  sworn  on  his  voir  dire,  deposeth  as  follows, 
viz  : — 

Question  by  Mr.  Allen — Are  you  interested  in  the  event  of  this  suit  ? 
Aswner — I  have  no  secular  interest  depending  ontheeventof  it  thatlknow 
of,  that  is  I  have  not  contributed  directly  or  indirectly  to  the  support   of  this 
suit. 


153 

dttestion  'fey  Mr.  Allen— Are  you  a  member  now  of  that  Church,  of  which 
John  Robertson  and  others  of  the  Complainants  are  members  and  which  claims 
to  be  the  Associate  Congregation  of  Cambridge  ? 

Answer — I  am  such  member. 

Question  by  Mr.  Allen— Suppose  this  suit  is  decided  against  the  Complain- 
ants, will  you  not  as  a  member  of  that  Church  be  interested  as  regards  the 
costs  or  property  to  be  gained  or  lost  by  such  decision  ? 

Answer — I  have  always  refused  to  pay  any  thing  for  the  support  of  the  law- 
suit, either  in  carrying  it  on  or  in  defending  it ;  and  for  these  reasons  I  think  I 
am  not  interested ;  and  my  refusal  to  do  so  has  been  public. 

Question  by^Mr.  Allen — Suppose  the  church  building  which  is  now  the  sub- 
ject of  controversy  in  this  suit  is  recovered  by  Complainants,  will  you  not  as  a 
member  of  that  church  attend  church  in  that  building,  and  be  entitled  to  its 
privileges  as  a  member  of  that  church  ? 

Answer — I  think  it  is  probable  I  should  if  I  am  alive  at  that  day. 

JAMES  LOURIE. 

Sworn  on  voir  dire,  examined  and 
subscribed  this  17th  day  of  Feb.,  in 
in  the  year  1842,  before  me, 

JAS.  GIBSON,  Examiner  in  Chancery. 

IN  CHANCERY, 

Before  the  Chancellor. 


William  Stevenson,  et  al.  ) 

vs.  ^  James  Lourie's  cross-deposition  oft  voir  dire. 

Alexander  Bullions,  et  al.  ) 

James  Lourie,  a  witness  produced  on  the  part  of  the  Complainants  in  the 
above  entitled  cause,  and  objected  toby  the  Defendants'  counsel,  as  being  in- 
terested, and  thereupon  duly  sworn  on  his  voir  dire,  and  examined  by  Mr.  Al- 
len, of  Counsel  for  said  Defendants,  being  now  cross-examined  by  Mr.  Clark,  of 
■counsel  for  Complainants,  deposeth  as  follows,  viz.  : 

Question  by  Mr.  Clark, — Were  you  at  the  time  of  the  commencement  of 
this  suit,  and  for  a  long  time  after  and  how  long,  an  adherent  of  Dr.  Bullions, 
one  of  the  Defendants. 

Ansv/er — I  was  at  that  time,  and  for  about  two  years  after.  Mr.  Allen  ob- 
jects to  this  question  and  answer,  on  the  ground  of  its  being  immaterial  and 
irrelevant.  The  objection  is  over-ruled  by  the  Examiner  and  the  evidence  re- 
ceived. 

Question  by  Mr.  Clark— Did  you  during  that  time  attend  on  the  ministra- 
tions of  Dr.  Bullions  and  up  to  what  time?  This  question  is  objected  by  Mr. 
Allen  of  Counsel  for  Defendants,  on  the  following  grounds,  viz:  Because  it  is 
immaterial  and  irrelevant.  The  objection  is  over-ruled  and  the  evidence  re- 
«ceived  by  the  examiner. 

Answer — I  did  so  and  continued  to  do  so  up  to  or  about  the  month  of  Octo- 
ber, 1840,  at  which  time  I  became  a  member  of  the  Congregation  of  which 
Complainants  are  a  part.  JAMES   LOURIE, 

Sworn,  subscribed  and  cross-exam-  ) 
ined  onvoir  dire,  this  17th  day  of  > 
Feb.  in  the  year  1842,  before  mc.  ) 

JAMES  GIBSON,  Examiner  in  Chancery. 
20 


154 

Mr.  Allen  of  Counsel  for  Defendants  now  continues  his  objection  to  the  com- 
petency of  this  witness  as  above  stated.  Tlie  examiner  thereupon  oTer-rulcs 
the  objection  to  the  witness  and  decides  that  lie  may  be  sworn  in  chief  as  a 
witness  in  the  above  entitled  cause.  Whereupon  the  said  James  Lourie  being 
duly  sworn  in  chief  as  a  witness  in  this  cause  and  being  examined  by  Orvillc 
Clark,  Esq.  as  counsel  for   said  Complainants,  deposeth  as  follows,  viz: 

Question  by  Mr.  Clark — State  your  place  of  residence,  age  and  your  distance 
from  the  meeting  house  in  question. 

1  reside  in  the  town  of  Jackson,  in  the  county  of  Washington,  and  state  of 
New  York,  about  seven  and  a  half  miles  from  the  meeting  house  in  controver- 
sy. I  am  forty  seven  years  of  age.  1  have  heretofore  been  a  member  of  the 
Congregation  of  Cambridge  since  about  the  years  1817  or  1819  and  from  the 
time  of  my  youth  up.  1  had  previously  resided  in  tlie  bounds  of  that  Con- 
gregation, and  had  been  a  baptized  member  of  the  church  from  my  infancy, 
and  always  in  the  habit  of  attending  that  church.  I  have  been  an  Elder  of 
that  church  since  about  the  year  1880,  and  as  an  Elder  w\is  of  course  a  mem- 
ber of  the  Session  during  that  time. 

Question  by  Mr.  Clark — In  1837,  were  you  a  member  of  ti  committee  ap- 
pointed by  the  Associate  Congregation  of  Cambridge,  to  ask  a  meeting  of  the 
Presbytery  of  Cambridge?  Mr,  Allen,  of  counsel  for  Defendants,  objects  to 
this  question,  on  the  following  grounds,  viz :  that  the  minutes  of  the  Congre- 
gation are  the  best  evidence,,  and  should  be  produced,  and  parole  evidence 
cannot  be  given,.  Mr.  Clark  thereupon  requires  the  production  of  said  minutes 
from  the  Defendants.  Mr.  Allen  replies  that  he  has  not  had  notice  to  produce 
them,  and  they  are  twelve  miles  ofT.  The  examiner  over-rules  the  objection 
and  receives  the  evidence. 

Answer — I  was  appointed  such  committee. 

Question  by  Mr.  Clark — Will  you  state  who  the  committee  were,  how  ap- 
pointed, for  what  object  and  what  they  did  ?  Mr.  Allen  of  counsel  for  Defen- 
dants, thereupon  makes  to  this  question  the  same  objection  as  to  the  last,  and 
also  that  the  testimony  is  irrelevant  and  immaterial.  The  objection  is  over- 
ruled by  the  Examiner,  and  the  evidence  received. 

Answer — The  committee  were  John  Robertson  and  myself.  The  apppoint- 
ment  was  made,  I  think  by  the  Congregation,  or  by  the  Session  with  the  con- 
currence of  the  Congregation.  The  object  of  the  appointment  of  such  com- 
mittee was  to  draft  a  memorial  to  lay  before  the  Presbytery  of  Cambridge  at 
their  pro  re  nata  meeting,  and  to  request  the  moderator  of  the  Presbytery  to 
call  a  pro  re  nata  meeting.  The  object  of  the  memorial  was  to  restore  Doctor 
Bullions,  and  the  reconciliation  of  our  difficulties.  The  committee  had  a  con- 
versation with  Dr.  Bullions,  and  we  had  reason  to  believe  that  hp  would  give 
the  necessary  satisfaction  in  order  to  his  restoration.  There  was  a  pro  re  nata 
meeting  of  Presbytery  called  for  November,  1837.  The  Presbytery  of  Cam- 
bridge, met  in  pursuance  of  the  call,  and  I  attended  as  one  of  the  committee 
on  the  part  of  the  CongregatioH  of  Cambridge. 

Question  by  Mr.  Clark — Did  the  Presbytery  of  Cambridge  call  on  the  com- 
mittee to  state  the  object  for  calling  the  meeting.  Mr.  Allen  objects  to  this 
question,  and  to  all  other  testimony  of  the  doings  of  Presbytery,  on  the  ground 
that  the  minutes  of  Presbytery  are  here,  and  arc  the  best  evidence,  and  parole 
evidence  cannot  be  given  of  their  contents.  Mr.  Clark  replies  that  the  mir»- 
utes  are  now  produced,  and  the  Defendants  counsel  can  have  them,  and  they 
are  marked  as  Exhibit  Q,  in  this  cause  on  part  of  Complainants.  The  exam- 
iner thereupon  over-rules  the  objection  and  receives  the  testimony. 

Answer — The  Presbytery  did  call  upon  the  committee  to  state  the  object  of 


155 

calling  them  together.     Dr.  Bullions  was  there  present  in  attendance.     The 
committee  laid  in  a  memorial  which   the  Congregation  had  approved  of.     In 
addition,  I  stated  as  one  of  the  committee,  that  we  had  reason  to  believe  that 
Dr.  Bullions  would  give  the  requisite  satisfaction.     Dr.  Bullions  was  present 
and  heard  this.     I  do  not  recollect  particularly  whether  he  made  any  reply  to 
what  I  said.     Dr.  Bullions  made  an  acknowledgement  to  the  Presbytery  at 
this  meeting,  which,  however,  the  Presbytery  did  not  accept.     That  acknowl- 
edgement was  in  reference  to  a  declaration  that  he  made  in  Argyle,  at  a  meet- 
ing of  Presbytery,  that  "  there  were  some  members  present  not  fit  to  sit  in  this 
court,  or  any  court."     I  was  not  present  at  the  October  meeting  of  Presbytery 
when  the  declaratioii  was  made.     The  acknowledgement  was,  that  if  he  had 
utterred  the  language   which  was  imputed  to  him,  that  it  was  wrong  and  he 
was  sorry  for  it.     I  am  only  speaking  from  recollection,   and  do  not  know 
whether  it  is  on  the  minutes.     This  is  aU  the  acknowledgement  I  recollect  of. 
The  Presbytery  wgre  not  satisfied  with  it.     Dr.  Bullions  said  at  this  time,  that 
he  had  no  consciousness  of  having  used  the  expression,  and  if  he  had  used  it, 
it  was  wrong  and  he  was  sorry  for  it.     The  Presbytery  presented  him  with 
seven  requisitfbns  at  that  time,  and  required  his  answer  to  one  of  them  at  that 
meeting.     This  was  the  fifth  requisition.     Dr.   Bullions  thereupon  gave  an 
answer  to  the  fifth  requisition.     It  was  a  verbal  answer.     The  Presbytery  re- 
quired Dr.  Bullions  to  take  his  choice  of  the  two  alternatives  of  the  fifth  re- 
quisition.    The  fifth  requisition  was  read  to  him,  and  he  answered  "  I  choose 
the  first  alternative,"  and  added — "  I  had  no  sooner  uttered  the  words  than  I 
was  sorry  for  it."     The  moderator  then  asked  him,   "  do  you  retract  the  de- 
claration made  against  your  brethren  as  slanderous  and  unfounded  in  truth." 
Dr.  Bullions  answered — "  I  do  so."     That  was  all  that  was  required  of  him  at 
that   meeting,  and  the  subject  was  laid  over  till  the  next  meeting,  and  the 
Presbytery  adjourned  to  meet  in  Salem  on  the  first  Wednesday  in  December. 
I  attended  the  meeting  of  Synod  in  May,  1888,  at  the  time  the   deposition  of 
Dr.  Bullions  was  confirmed.     I  attended  then  as  a  commissioner  of  the  Cam- 
bridge Congregation.     After  the  confirmation  of  the  deposition  by  Synod,  they 
appointed  two  commissioners   to  wait  on    the  Congregation  of  Cambridge, 
and  inform  them  of  the  fact  of  such   confirmation.     The  commissioners  were 
the  Rev.  Messrs.  McKie  and  McGill.     The  commissioners,  it  was  understood 
by  Synod,  should  proceed  to  execute  this  duty  as  soon  as  practicable.     The 
commissioners  arrived  at  Cambridge  within  two  weeks,  I  think,  after  the  ad- 
journment of  Synod.     Messrs.  Goodwillie,  Pringle  and  Dr.  Bullions  were  in 
attendance  at  this  meeting  of  Synod.     They  were  in  Cambridge  on  Sunday 
and  Monday,  about  a  week  after  the  adjournment  of  Synod.     I  think  Mr. 
Goodwillie  preached  on   that  Sunday.     They  were  all  three  present  on  Mon- 
day at  a  meeting  of  the  Congregation  of  Cambridge.     This  was  before  the 
arrival  of  the  commissioners  appointed  by  Synod.     I  think  notice  was  given 
on  Sunday,  that  there  would  be  a  meeting  of  the  Congregation  the  next  day  ; 
the  meeting  was  a  very  full  one.     I  attended  it.     Mr.  Goodv/illie  first  addres- 
sed that  meeting. 

Question  by  Mr.  Clark — What  did  Mr.  Goodwillie  suggest  or  advise,  should 
be  the  course  of  the  Congregation  in  relation  to  Dr.  Bullions?  This  question 
is  objected  to  by  Mr.  Allen  of  counsel  for  Defendants,  on  the  following  grounds, 
viz  :  That  it  is  irrelevant  and  immaterial,  and  hearsay  testimony,  and  Mr. 
Goodwillie  is  the  best  witness,  and  is  a  competent  witness  to  shew  what  he  did 
suggest  and  advise  the  Congregation  to  do.  The  objection  of  Mr.  Allen  is 
over-ruled  by  the  examiner  and  the  evidence  received. 

Answer — He  said  in  his  address  that  they  might  either  join  Dr.  Bullions  in 


156 

his  protest  ami  hear  liiin  preach  ;  or  adhere  to  the  Presbytery  and  SyMod,  and 
dismiss  Dr.  BuHions  ;  but  he  said  he  did  not  know  which  of  these  two  ways 
it  was  best  for  them  to  fake.  This  is  as  near  as  I  can  recollect,  or  about  the 
the  amount  of  what  he  said  on  that  subject.  Dr.  Bullions  read  to  the  Con- 
gregation at  this  mectino-,  what  he  said  was  the  protest  he  had  made  against 
the  deed  of  Synod  conhrming  his  deposition.  Which  protest  will  be  found 
on  pages  23  and  24  of  the  minutes  of  Synod  for  the  year  1839..  See  page  23 
of  Exhibit  A,  on  the  part  of  Complainants.  At  this  meeting,  Dr.  Bullions 
was  asked  if  he  wrote  the  foot  note  at  the  bottom  of  the  anonymous  letter 
which  was  sent  to  David  Gordon.  He  replied,  that  he  wrote  such  a  note  at  the 
bottom  of  a  letter,  a  copy  of  which  he  intended  David  Gordon  should  have, 
without  disguise. 

The  Congregation  passed  a  resolution,  at  this  meeting,  subsequent  to  the 
matters  I  have  stated,  that  they  would  join  Dr.  Bullions  in  his  protest.  The 
resolution  was  not  passed  unanimously.  Another  resolution  was  passed,  that 
they  would  invite  Dr.  Bullions  to  preach.  This  last  resolution  was  passed 
without  giving  any  time  for  remarks,  and  the  affirmative  side  of  the  question 
only  was  put.  The  negative  was  not  put  that  I  recollect  of.  Since  the  time 
of  that  vote.  Dr.  Bullions  continued  to  preach  to  those  persons  in  that  house, 
while  I  continued  to  attend  upon  his  ministrations.  No  ministers  who  are 
now  in  good  standing  in  the  Associate  Church,  preached  in  that  church,  so 
far  as  I  know  of,  while  I  attended  church  there.  On  reflection,  however,  I 
recollect  that  while  I  attended  there,  Mr.  White,  sen'r.  preached  there  once, 
and  I  do  not  know  whether  or  not  he  has  been  suspended.  About  a  week  af- 
ter the  first  meeting  of  the  Congregation  I  have  spoken  of  above,  there  was  a 
second  meeting  of  the  Congregation,  at  which  a  committee  of  five  was  ap- 
pointed. The  committee  consisted  of  Messrs.  John  Robertson  and  John  Fos- 
ter on  the  part  of  the  minority,  and  Messrs.  Robert  McClelland,  George  W. 
Robertson  and  myself  on  the  part  of  the  majority.  The  whole  Congregation 
concurred  unanimously  in  the  appointment  of  this  committee.  The  object  of  the 
appointment  of  this  committee  was  as  stated  in  the  resolution,  as  follows,  viz  : 

Resolved,  That  a  committee  of  five  be  appointed  to  confer  with  Dr.  Bullions 
and  the  Associate  Congregation  of  Cambridge  and  commissioners  from  Synod 
with  a  view  to  the  restoration  of  Dr.  Bullions,  and  the  reconciliation  of  our  dif- 
ferences and  that  Dr.  Bullions  be  requested  not  to  preach  until  the  event  be 
known.  That  committee  called  on  Dr.  Bullions  two  or  throe  days  previous  to 
the  meeting  of  Presbytery  in  Salem,  June  27th,  1S38.  On  that  occasion  Dr. 
Bullions  drew  up  a  paper  which  contained  the  concession  that  he  was  willing 
to  make  and  gave  it  to  the  committee  for  their  consideration  to  do  with  it  as 
they  thought  proper.  He  stated  to  the  committee  that  it  was  his  intention  to 
go  to  the  Presbytery  of  Vermont  and  make  application  to  be  restored  and  that 
any  thing  that  the  Presbytery  of  Cambridge  should  do  he  did  not  wish  to  have 
interfere  with  his  going  to  Vermont  Presbytery.  I  told  him  in  the  presence  of 
the  committee  that  I  thought  that  step  wholly  unpresbyterial  and  unprecedent- 
ed and  that  that  Presbytery,  meaning  the  Presbytery  of  Vermont,  had  no  pow- 
er or  jurisdiction  over  him,  and  that  the  offence  which  he  had  committed  and 
for  which  he  had  been  censured,  was  not  made  against  that  Presbytery,  and 
therefore  that  was  not  the  proper  court  to  which  he  should  make  satisfaction. 
Dr.  Bullions  replied  to  that,  that  he  was  cast  out  of  the  Church  by  the  Associ- 
ate Synod  and  that  he  had  a  right  to  go  where  he  pleased.  That  that  court 
might  receive  him  in  just  as  they  would  any  persons  coming  from  another  de- 
nomination. Dr.  Bullions  on  this  occasion  said  he  had  read  a  minute  of  Pres- 
bytery or  Synod  stating  Oiat  he  had  acknowledged  the  declaration  made  against 


157 

his  brethren  on  the  5th  day  of  October  1S37,  as  slanderous  and  unfounded,  he 
said  that  statement  in  the  minutes  was  untrue  and  he  would  hold  the  man  who. 
said  it  was  true,  a  sknderer.  Mr.  Robertson  and  myself  were  present  at  the 
meeting  of  Presbytery  at  which  that  confession  was  made  by  Dr.  Bullions  as 
recorded  on  the  minutes  of  Presbytery,  and  I  heard  him  make  it.  When  Dr.. 
Bullions  made  the  statement  to  the  committee,  that  the  statement  of  Presby- 
tery was  untrue  in  relation  to  his  retracting  as  the  said  requisition  requires,  viz:: 
That  he  retract  as  unfounded  and  slanderous,  &c.  Mr.  Robertson  replied  to  Dr. 
Bullions  that  he  heard  him  make  the  statement,  or  confession  as  recorded  by 
Presbytery.  Dr.  Bullions  continued  to  maintain  the  ground  that  he  had  previ- 
ously taken.  One  of  the  commissioners  of  Synod  was  present  at  this  time. 
A  part  of  this  committee,  viz:  Messrs.  John  Robertson,  John  Foster  and  my- 
self attended  the  next  meeting  of  Presbytery  at  Salem,  June  27th,  1838.  Dr. 
Bullions  did  not  attend  the  meeting.  Mr.  McKie  the  commissioner  of  Synod 
was  in  attendance  at  that  meeting.  The  minutes  of  the  Presbytery  of  Cam- 
bridge of  this  meeting,  relative  to  the  presentation  of  papers  to  the  Presbytery 
and  in  said  minutes  marked  as  No.  1,  2,  and  3,  and  by  Presbytery  returned  to 
tbe  committee  for  the  reasons  mentioned  in  the  minutes,  is  a  correct  minute^ 
The  minute  of  Presbytery  of  the  same  meeting  relative  to  the  request  of  wit- 
ness to  Presbytery  for  instructions  as  to  their  dealing  with  Dr.  Bullions  and 
the  answer  of  Presbytery  thereto  by  their  resolutions,  is  also  a  correct  minute. 
I  was  present  at  the  adjourned  pt-o  re  nata  meeting  at  Salem  in  December,  1837» 
when  the  answer  of  Dr.  Bullions  to  the  six  requisitions  came  in.  A  questioa 
was  put  to  Dr.  Bullions  growing  out  of  his  former  answer  to  the  fifth  requi- 
sition. This  question  was  put  by  the  Presbytery.  That  question  was  as  fol- 
lows, viz:  Does  Dr.  Bullions  acknowledge  his  sin  and  profess  his  unfeigned 
sorrow  for  it,  in  the  falsehood  and  slander  which  he  has  acknowledged  he  did 
utter  against  his  brethren  of  the  Presbytery.  The  answer  of  Dr.  Bullions  ta 
this  question  was  in  writing.  He  wrote  it  in  my  presence  and  I  recollect  what 
it  was. 

Question  by  Mr.  Clark — What  was  that  answer  ? 

This  question  is  objected  to  by  Mr.  Allen  of  counsel  for  Defendants  on  tho 
following  grounds,  viz:  That  it  is  recorded  in  the  minutes  and  they  are  the 
best  evidence,  and  the  minutes,  have  been  produced.  Mr.  Clark  then  waives 
the  question  and  refers  to  the  minutes  for  the  answer.  I  was  present  at  a 
meeting  of  the  members  of  the  session  of  the  Cambridge  Congregation  held 
at  Cambridge  on  the  friday  after  the  meeting  of  Presbytery  in  October,  1837. 
Dr.  Bullions  was  present  at  this  meeting  of  the  members  of  Session. 

Question  by  Mr.  Clark — Did  Dr.  Bullions  offer  to  read  a  paper  there,  and  if 
so,  what?  Mr.  Allen  of  counsel  for  Defendants  objects  to  this  question  on  the- 
following  grounds,  viz:  that  the  minutes  of  session  ought  to  be  produced,  and 
they  are  the  best  evidence.  Second,  that  it  is  irrelevant  and  immaterial  and 
not  within  the  issue.  Mr.  Clark  then  asks  the  witness  if  there  were  any  min- 
utes kept  of  that  meeting? 

Answer — There  were  none.  We  did  not  consider  it  a  regularly  constituted 
meeting,  because  it  was  not  constituted  with  prayer  by  any  minister.  Dr.  Buk 
lions  was  then  under  suspension.  Mr.  Allen  continues  the  objection  and  the 
examiner  thereupon  decides  that  the  objection  is  not  well  taken  and  receivea 
the  evidence. 

Answer — Dr.  Bullions  did  offer  to  read  a  paper  on  that  occasion  which  he  said  • 
was  an  anonymous  letter,  which  he  had  got  from  the  Rev.  George  Mairs  the 
day  before  for  the  purpose  of  reading  it  to  them,   if  they  were  willing.     He 
said  it  was  the  same  letter  to  which  he  had  referred  in  Presbytery.     The  mem- 


15S 

iers  of  Session  refused  to  hear  it  read.  I  was  the  one  who  spoke  first  on  the 
question  and  £^ave  as  my  reasons  for  not  wishing  to  have  it  read  ;  that  if  it  were 
anonymous  Dr.  Bulliojus  would  be  hold  responsible  for  its  contents.  Dr.  Bull- 
ions oHered  at  first  to  read  a  le.tter  as  1  stated  above  without  saying  that  it  was 
anonymous.  I  af^ked  him  if  it  was  anonymous.  He  replied  that  it  was.  1 
then  answered  him  as  above,  that  he  ougJit  not  to  read  it,  as  he  would  be  hold 
responsible  for  its  contents.  Sometime  in  June,  1S38,  after  Dr.  Bullions  had 
returned  from  Synod,  he  asked  me  if  I  recollected  of  his  reading  a  paper  to  me, 
John  Robertson  and  William  Stevenson  at  the  time  tlie  Presbytery  met  to  set- 
tle the  tampering  case.  Upon  my  answering  in  the  affirmative,  he  said  that 
paper  contained  the  sum  and  substance  of  that  anonymous  letter ;  and  I  laid  it 
away  in  my  study,  and  it  has  gone,  and  I  do  not  know  where  it  is  ;  but  1  sup- 
pose some  person  got  it  and  made  up  that  letter  from  it.  On  or  about  the  third 
,day  of  March,  in  the  year  1836,  Dr.  Bullions  read  to  John  Robertson,  William 
Stevenson  and  myself,  the  paper  above  alluded  to.  Mr.  Allen  of  counsel  for 
Defendants  objects  to  the  above  testimony  of  this  witness  as  irrelevant  and  im- 
material and  not  within  the  issue. 

Question  by  Mr.  Clark — How  many  elders  were  there  in  the  congregation  of 
Cambridge  at  the  time  Dr.  Bullions  was  suspended  ,?  Mr.  Allen,  of  counsel 
for  Defendants,  objects  to  this  question  on  the  following  grounds,  viz:  That 
it  is  testifying  by  parole,  what  the  minutes,  if  produced,  will  shew  best,  and 
they  ought  to  be  produced.  The  objection  is  over-ruled  by  the  examiner,  and 
the  evidence  received. 

Answer — There  Avere  nine  elders  at  that  time,  I  think.  They  were  John 
McClelland,  Edward  Cook.  Edward  Small,  Jrthn  Robertson,  George  Lourie, 
William  McGeoch,  George  I.  Maxwell,  John  Shiland  and  myself.  The  fol- 
lowing named  persons  among  the  elders  above  named  now  adhere  to  the  As- 
sociate Presbytery  of  Cambridge,  viz:  William  McGeoch,  Edward  Cook,  Ed- 
ward Small,  John  Robertson  and  myself.  These  are  the  elders  recognized  by 
the  Associate  Presbytery  of  Cambridge,  as  the  regular  session  of  the  Asso- 
ciate Congregation  of  Cambridge.  AVhen  Dr.  Bullions  was  deposed  I  believe 
all  of  the  above  named  Elders  except  myself  adhered  to  the  Presbytery  and 
continued  so  to  adhere. 

JAMES  LOURIE. 
Sworn,  examined  and   subscrib-  J 
ed  this  17th  day   of  February  > 
in  the  year  1842,  before  me,      ) 

JAMES  GIBSON,  Examiner  in  Chancery. 


IN    CHANCERY, 

EFORE     THE     CHANCELLOR 


William  Stevenson,  et  al,      ) 

vs.  >  James  Lourie's  further  direct  examination. 

Alexander  Bullions,  et  al.    ) 


James  Lourie,  a  witness  produced  on  the  part  of  the  Complainants,  in  the 
:above  entitled  cause,  and  examined  by  Mr.  Clark,  of  counsel  for  said  Com- 
plainants, which  examination  not  having  been  closed,  he  is  again  produced 
before  the  examiner,  and  further  examined  by  Mr.  Clark,  deposeth  thereon  as 


159 

follows,  viz  :  I  was  present  at  the  meeting  of  Cambridge  Presbytery  at  Sa- 
lem, when  Dr.  Bullions  put  in  his  answer  to  the  requisitions  of  Presbytery. 
On  the  day  and  before  he  put  them  in  he  read  a  part  of  the  answers  to  the 
seven  requisitions  of  Presbytery  to  me.  He  read  two  or  three  of  the  first  to  me. 
He  might  have  read  them  all ;  but  I  recollect  only  the  two  or  three  first  an- 
swers. Those  he  read  to  me  were  the  same  he  afterwards  put  in.  John  Rob- 
ertson and  George  I.  Maxwell  were  present  when  he  read  them.  Messrs.  Rob- 
ertson and  Maxwell,  as  well  as  myself,  were  then  adherents  of  Dr.  Bullions. 
It  was  before  any  division  in  the  church.  When  Dr.  Bullions  read  his  answers,- 
I  do  not  recollect  that  he  made  any  remarks  in  relation  to  them  except  as  to 
the  answer  to  the  second  requisition.  After  he  read  his  answer,  he  remarked,- 
"  you  will  observe  there  is  no  acknowledgement  of  sin  in  this."  Mr.  Allen- 
objects  to  any  evidence  of  whait  Dr.  Bullions  said  about  his  answers  as  imma- 
terial and  irrelevant. 

I  was  in  Argyle  in  the  afternoon  of  the  day  that  the  difficulty  with  Dr.  Bul- 
lions first  occurred.  I  was  in  attendance  and  present  in  Presbytery  as  a  spec- 
tator. 

Question — Did  you  hear  Dr.  Bullions  repeat  the  words  which  he  said  he  had' 
used  in  the  morning  to  Presbytery,  and  if  so,  what  were  the  words  which  he 
said  he  .had  used  ?  Mr.  Allen,  of  counsel  for  Defendants,  objects  to  the' 
question  on  the  following  grounds:  First:  It  is  irrelevant  and  immaterial 
Second :  If  proper  evidence  it  can  only  be  proved  by  the  production  of  the 
minutes.  The  objection  was  over-ruled  by  the  examiner,  and  the  evidence 
received. 

Answer — I  heard  him  repeat  the  words.  He  said  the  words  he  had  used  in' 
the  morning  were, — "  That  if  reports  were  true  there  were  some  members  iir 
this  court  that  were  not  fit  to  sit  in  it."  He  also  gave  the  names  of  the  mem- 
bers to  whom  he  referred  ;  they  were  Messrs.  Alexander  Gordon,  D.  Gordon;. 
A.  Anderson,  and  James  P.  Miller.  He  referred  to  a  document  in  the  hands' 
of  the  Rev.  George  Mairs,  jr.,  and  the  Rev.  Peter  Gordon.  I  am  acquainted' 
with  the  hand  writing  of  Dr.  Bullions.     I  have  often  seen  him  write. 

Question — Look  on  the  back  of  Exhibit  H,  on  part  of  Complainants,  at  the 
direction  or  superscription  of  the  same,  at  the  words, 

"  Rev.  A..  Bullions,  D.  D. 

Cambridge, 

N.  Y.. 

In  whose  hand-writing  are  those  words  ?  Mr.  Allen,  of  counsel  for  De-- 
fendants,  objects  to  this  question  on  the  following  grounds,  that  it  is  irrelevant 
and  immaterial,  and  not  within  the  issue.  Which  objection  is  over-ruled  by 
the  Examiner,, and  the  evidence  received. 

Answer — I  believe  it  to  be  the  hand-writing  of  Dr.  Alexander  Bullions  from' 
the  knowledge  I  have  of  his  hand-writing.  Look  also  at  the  bottom  of  the- 
same  at  the  words. 

"  N.  B.  Let  Mr.  D.  Gordon  have  a  reading  of  the  above." 

In  whose  hand- writing  are  those  words  ?  The  question  is  objected  by  Mr. 
Allen,  of  counsel  for  Defendants,  on  grounds — the  same  as  to  the  last  question. 
The  Examiner  over-rules  the  objection  and  receives  the  evidence. 

Answer — I  believe  the  words  to  be  in  the  hand-writing  of  Dr.  A.  Bullions. 

Question — Is  there  a  stone  in  the  wall  on  the  inside  of  the  entrance  of  the' 
brick  church  in  Cambridge,  being  the  church  in  controversy  in  this  suit,  with" 
an  inscription  on  it,  placed  there  at  the  time  of  the  erection  of  the  church  edi- 
fice, and  if  so,  describe  it  and  give  the  inscription  ? 

Answer — There  is  such  a  stone,  built  in  the  wall  en  the  west  side  of  the' 
loby  or  entrance,  having  an  inscription  as  follows  ; 


IGO 

"The  Associate  Presbyterian  Clnirch,  first  built  17S6— rebuilt  1833." 

It  stands  fronting;  the  entrance  so  as  to  be  seen  by  any  one  entcrin?  the 
ihouse,  and  directly  opposite  tlie  middle  door.  Mr.  Allen,  of  counsel  for  De- 
fendants, objects  to  this  (juestion  and  answer  on  the  grounds,  that  it  is  irrele- 
vant and  immaterial.  The  stone  was  put  in  at  the  time  of  the  erection  of  the 
house.  I  am  some  acquainted  with  the  hand-writing  of  James  Shiland  ;  he 
is  one  of  the  adherents  of  Dr.  Bullions. 

Question — Look  at  the  paper  she\Vn  to  you,  marked  as  Exhibit  R,  on  part 
of  Complainants,  is  it  in  the  hand  writing  of  James  Shiiand, 

Answer — I  believe  it  is.  Complainants  produce  this  document,  which  is 
annexed,  and  marked  as  Exhibit  K,  on  their  part.  This  is  the  notice  read  to 
the  Congregation  by  order  of  the  Trustees. 

Question — Was  there  an  inscription  on  the  old  Church  edifice,  above  the 
front  door,  and  if  so,  what  Avas  it?  The  question  is  objected  to  by  Mr.  Allen 
X){  counsel  for  Defendants,  on  the  grounds  that  it  is  immaterial  and  irrelevant. 
Which  objection  is,  by  the  examiner  over-ruled,  and  the  evidence  received. 

Answer — There  was  an  inscription,  stating  the  year  it  was  built,  1786. 
Nothing  else  that  I  remember. 

Question — Does  the  new  Church  edifice  stand  on  the  same  ground  covered 
by  the  old  Church  edifice  ? 

Answer— It  stands  on  the  same  site. 

Question — How  long  can  you  remember  the  old  Church  edifice? 

Answer — I  can  remember  it  rising  of  40  years.  It  stood  on  the  same  site 
with  the  present  brick  Church  edifice.  I  remember  back  to  the  time  when  Mr> 
Banks  officiated  there,  before  Dr.  Bullions  came.  I  remember  also  of  seeing 
Mr.  Beveridge  at  my  father's  house. 

Question — Did  the  Cambridge  Congregation  always  worship  in  the  old  edi- 
fice, until  they  pulled  it  down  to  make  room  for  the  new  one,  and  afterwards 
in  the  new  one  until  the  division  which  is  the  subject  matter  of  this  contro- 
versy ? 

Answer — They  did. 

Question — How  long  had  the  Cambridge  Congregation  occupied  the  old 
Church  edifice,  and  the  new  brick  edifice,  as  their  place  of  worship,  without 
interruption,  previous  to  the  division  of  the  Congregation,  which  is  the  sub- 
ject matter  of  this  controversy  ? 

Answer — From  my  own  knowledge  I  cannot  say  how  long,  as  the  old  edi- 
fice was  built  before  I  was  born.  I  have  known  it  for  about  40  years,  and 
during  that  time  it  has  been  their  place  of  worship. 

Question. — Are  persons  not  in  full  communion  in  the  Cambridge  Congrega- 
tion allowed  to  vote  for  Church  officers  in  that  Congregation,  or  for  Trustees* 
by  the  practice  of  the  Congregation  and  the  rules  of  the  Associate  Church  ? 
Mr.  Allen  of  counsel  for  Defendants  objects  to  the  question  on  the  following 
grounds,  that  it  immaterial  and  irrelevant.  The  examiner  over-rules  the  ob- 
jection and  receives  the  testimony. 

Answer — It  has  been  the  practice  of  that  Congregation  to  prohibit  any  from 
voting  for  Trustees,  not  in  full  communion  in  the  Church,  if  their  votes  were 
challenged,  and  also  the  practice  to  prohibit  all  from  voting  for  elders,  who 
Were  not  in  full  communion.  This  has  been  the  practice  since  the  incorpora- 
tion of  the  Church.  I  do  not  know  of  any  written  rule  that  those  not  in  full 
communion  should  not  vote  for  Trustees.  By  the  rules  of  the  Associate 
Church,  none  but  those  who  are  in  full  communion  are  allowed  to  vote  for 
ministers,  elders  or  deacons. 

Question — What  is  the  ofTice  and  duties  of  Deacons  in  the  Associate  Church, 


161  ^ 

and  what  duties  do  the  Trustees  perforin  in  said   Church,  since  Trustees  have 

been  elected  in  said  Church  and  in  the  CamLridge  Congregation  ?     Mr.  Allen 

objects  to  this  question  on  the  grounds  of  its  immateriality  and  irrelevancy. 

Answer — The  Trustees  have  the  charge  of  all  the  temporalities  of  the  Church 

JAMES  LOURIE. 
Sworn,   examined  and    subscrib- 
ed,   this   12th   day  of    July,  in 


the  year  1S42,   before  me, 

JAMES  GIBSON,  Examiner  in   Chancery. 


IN    CHANCERY: 

Before  the  Chancellor. 


William  Stevenson,  et  al,    ) 

vs.  >    James  Lourie's  cross-examination. 

Alexander  Bullions,  et  al.     ) 


James  Lourie,  a  witness  produced  in  the  above  entitled  cause,  on  the  part 
of  Complainants,  and  examined  by  Mr.  Clark  of  counsel  for  said  Complain- 
ants, before  Jas.  Gibson,  one  of  the  examiners  in  Chancery,  in  and  for  the 
county  of  Washington,  being  now  again  produced  before  said  examiner,  at 
the  house  of  Chester  Safford,  Jr.  in  the  town  of  Salem,  in  said  county,  and 
being  cross-examined  by  Mr.  Allen  of  counsel  for  said  Defendants,  deposeth 
as  follows,  viz  : 

Question — How  many  years  did  you  attend  the  ministry  of  Dr.  Bullions? 

Answer — As  near  as  I  can  recollect,  about  thirty  years. 

Question — During  that  time,  has  he  always  preached  the  gospel  ? 

Answer — He  has,  except  some  things  I  could  not  agree  with. 

Question — Why  did  you  continue  to  attend  iipon  his  ministry  until  about 
October,  1840,  and  after  his  suspension  ?  Mr.  Crary  of  counsel  for  Complain- 
ants objects  to  this  question  on  the  ground  that  his  reasons  are  immaterial. 
The  examiner  over-rules  the  objection  and  takes  down  the  answer. 

Answer — I  was  not  then  fully  satisfied  with  regard  to  some  of  the  dealings 
of  the  Presbytery  in  his  case.  I  was  in  doubt  on  the  subject.  I  thought  at 
the  time  of  his  suspension  that  it  Avas  too  hasty,  and  that  they  ought  to  have 
admitted  his  protest  against  the  sentence  of  rebuke. 

Question — Was  not  the  acknowledgement  of  Dr.  Bullions  to  Presbytery  at 
that  time,  such  as  ought  to  have  been  received  as  satisfactory,  and  did  not  you 
think  and  say  so  at  the  time  ?  Mr.  Crary  of  counsel  for  Complainants  objects 
to  this  question  on  the  ground  that  it  is  immaterial  and  irrelevant,  and  that 
the  witness  is  asked  for  his  opinion,  which  is  inadmissible,  and  has  no  bearing 
on  this  case,  as  he  was  not  the  judge,  and  there  was  a  competent  court  to  de- 
termine that  it  should  be  satisfactory,  and  that  court  did  decide  it  insufficient. 
The  examiner  over-rules  the  objection  and  receives  the  testimony. 

Answer — I  did  think  so  at  that  time.  I  do  not  now  think  the  acknowledge- 
ment was  sufficient.     I  presume  I  then  said  I  thought  it  sufficient. 

Question — How  long  since  you  uttered  your  mind  ? 

Answer — I  do  not  recollect  how  long  since  I  uttered  my  mind  on  the  subject. 

Question — Do  you  know  where  the  memorial  is  that  you,  as  one  of  the 
committee  of  the   Cambridge  Congregation  handed  in  to  the  Presbytery  at 
the  pro  re  nata  meeting  of  November,  1837  ? 
21 


162 

Answer — I  do  not  know. — It  was  not  linndcd  back  to  me  by  Presbytery, 
and  I  have  not  seen  it  since. 

Question — How  larj^o  a  part  of  the  Conefrcffalion  of  Canibridc^e  voted  to 
join  Dr.  Bullions  in  lii.s  protest  against  the  decision  of  Synod,  in  May,  1838, 
at  the  meeting  of  the  Congregation,  of  whicli  you  spoke  in  your  direct  exam- 
ination, when  Mr.  Goodwillie  was  present  ? 

Answer — Those  who  arc  noAv  following  the  Doctor  voted  in  favor  of  the 
motion.     I  connot  say  how  many  there  Avere.     I  did  not  vote  either  way. 

Question — Was  that  a  large  majority  of  the  Congregation? 

Answer — It  might  be  considered  a  large  majority  at  that  time.  It  might  be 
two  thirds  as  near  as  I  am  able  to  judge ;  I  mean  two  thirds  of  those  present. 
I  speak  now  of  the  male  members  who  voted.  Mr.  Crary  objects  to  the  two 
last  questions  and  answers  as  immaterial  and  irrelevant. 

Question — Who  was  moderator  at  this  meeting  ? 

Answer — Thomas  McLean. 

Question — Did  those  who  voted  to  join  Dr.  Bullions  separate  by  dividing 
the  house  ? 

Answer — They  did. 

Question — Did  the  house  continue  so  divided  when  they  invited  Dr.  Bullions 
to  preach  ?  . 

Answer — I  believe  they  did  ;  one  vote  followed  the  other  immediately. 

Question — Why  did  not  the  other  two  members  of  the  committee  whom  you 
mentioned  in  your  direct  examination,  to  wit:  Messrs.  George  Eobertson  and 
Kobert  McClelland  attend  the  meeting  of  Presbytery  of  June  27th,  1838? — 
Mr.  Crary  objects  to  this  question  on  the  following  ground,  viz  :  that  it  is  im- 
material and  irrelevant.  The  Examiner  over-rules  the  objection  and  receives 
the  testimony. 

Answer — I  do  not  know. 

Question — Were  some  of  the  papers  to  be  presented  to  the  Presbytery,  en 
trusted  to  the  commissioner,  Mr.  JMcKie,  to  present  at  that  meeting,  and  if  so, 
what  were  they  ? 

Answer — There  were  some  papers  entrusted  to  Blr.  McKie,  and  the  same 
that  I  have  spoken  of  in  my  direct  examination. 

Question— Can  you  state  their  contents? 

Answer — I  do  not  recollect,  except  of  one  which  I  presented  myself.  The 
question  and  answer  objected  to  as  immaterial  and  irrelevant,  and  the  papers 
themselves  should  be  produced. 

Question — Do  you  know  that  Mr.  McKie  handed  in  a  paper  to  Presbytery 
belonging  to  the  committee,  and  which  contained  negotiations  between  the 
committee  and  Dr.  Bullions,  and  which  was  not  to  be  handed  over  to  Presby- 
tery ?  Mr.  Clark  objects  to  this  question  on  the  grounds,  that  it  is  irrelevant 
and  immaterial.  Objection  over-ruled  by  the  Examiner  and  the  evidence  re- 
ceived. 

Answer — Mr.  McKie  handed  in  to  Presbytery  a  paper  that  I  did  not  under- 
stand was  the  intention  of  the  committee  to  hand  in  to  Presbytery ;  it  was  a 
paper  that  Dr.  Bullions  gave  to  the  committee.  I  do  not  know  now  where 
those  papers  are,  except  the  one  I  handed  in. 

Question — Was  the  meeting  of  the  session  of  Cambridge  Congregation  in 
October,  1837  a  regular  meeting  of  session  ? 

Answer — It  was  not.  It  was  a  special  meeting  called  at  the  request  of  Dr. 
Bullions.  It  was  not  a  regularly  constituted  meeting  of  session.  There  was 
no  moderator.  It  was  an  informal  meeting.  I  think  all  the  members  of  ses- 
sion were  present,  except  George  Lourie  and  perhaps  George  I.  Maxwell. 

Questio^i — When  was  it  that  Dr.  Bullions  read  you  and  John  Robertson  and 


163 

William  Stevenson  the  paper  that  you  spoke  of  in  your  direct  examination  as 
having  been  referred  to  by  liim  in  a  conversation  in  June,  1838? 

Answer — It  was  the  fore  part  of  March,  1S36,  when  the  Presbytery  were  in 
session  on  the  tampering  case. 

Question — Had  that  paper  reference  to  the  tampering  case  ? 

Answer — I  do  not  recollect  its  contents. 

Question — Was  it  not  a  paper  that  he  intended  to  read  before  Presbytery,  on 
the  trial  of  the  tampering  case  ? 

Answer — Dr.  Bullions  said  it  was  a  paper  that  he  intended  to  read  before 
Presbytery,  on  the  trial  of  the  tampering  case,  and  asked  our  advice  about  it. 

Question — Would  you  know  the  contents  of  the  paper  if  you  were  to  see  it, 
or  hear  it  read? 

Answer — I  think  I  should  not.     I  have  no  recollection  of  its  contents. 

Question — Did  Dr.  Bullions  read  that  paper  to  you  and  the  others  as  friends, 
asking  your  advice  about  it? 

Answer — He  did. 

Question — At  the  time  of  the  conversation  in  June,  1838  to  which  you  re- 
ferred and  of  which  you  have  been  just  speaking,  did  you  make  any  memoran- 
dum of  it? 

Answer — I  did  not. 

Question — Do  you  now  say  that  you  recollect  all  the  conversation  between 
you  and  Dr.  Bullions,  that  took  place  at  that  time. 

Answer — I  do  not  recollect  all  the  conversation.  There  was  but  very  little 
of  it. 

Question — Did  he  not  insist  that  the  statements  that  he  had  read  to  you  in. 
that  paper  were  true  ? 

Answer — I  do  not  recollect. 

Question — Do  you  recollect  any  thing  else  that  he  said  at  that  time,  except 
what  you  have  said  in  your  direct  examination  ? 

Answer — I  do  not,  only  that  he  was  speaking  of  the  anonymous  letter. 

Question — Who  were  Trustees  of  the  Associate  Congregation  of  Cam- 
bridge in  October,  1837,  while  Dr.  Bullions  was  suspended  ?  Mr.  Clark  ob- 
jects to  this  question  on  the  grounds  that  there  is  better  evidence  :  that  the 
records  will  shew  and  are  the  only  proper  evidence  to  prove  the  fact.  The 
Examiner  over-rules  the  objection  and  receives  the  evidence. 

Answer — T  do  not  know  as  I  could  name  them  all ;  I  recollect  some  of  them; 
I  recollect  Messrs.  William  Stevenson,  senr.,  William  Robertson,  Peter  Hill, 
James  Coulter,  I  think,  James  Shiland,  Robert  McClelland. 

Question — Who  were  the  Elders  of  the  Cambridge  Congregation  when  the 
commissioners  of  Synod  came  to  Cambridge  in  June,  1838  ? 

Answer — The  same  as  in  October  previous. 

Question — Were  you  present  in  the  afternoon  of  the  fifth  of  October,  1837, 
when  Dr.  Bullions  was  suspended  by  Presbyter}'',  and  did  you  hear  the  dissent 
of  John  Robertson,  and  what  Was  that  dissent  ? 

Answer — I  was  present  and  heard  the  dissent  of  Mr.  Robertson.  He  dis- 
sented against  a  part  of  the  minutes — against  the  words,  "  you  may  censure 
me  till  you  are  tired."  He  did  not  then  state  the  reasons  of  his  dissent,  but 
said  he  would  give  them  in  writing. 

Question — Did  you  ever  hear  John  Robertson  say  that  he  had  been  tamper- 
ed with  at  any  time  by  any  person  and  if  so,  when,  and  by  whom  ? 

Mr.  Crary,  of  counsel  for  Complainants,  objects  to  this  question  on  the 
ground  that  it  is  immaterial  and  irrelevant.  The  examiner  over-rules  the  ob- 
jection and  receives  the  testimony. 


164 

Answer — I  liave  no  recollertiun  of  liearing  liiin  i;ay  that  lie  was  tampered 
with. 

Question — Did  you  over  liear  him  say  any  thing  to  that  import  or  eflect  ? 
Mr.  Crary,  of  counsel  for  Complainants,  objects  to  this  question,  on  the  ground, 
on  same  grounds  as  hefore,  and  nho  that  it  is  merely  giving  the  judgment  of 
the  Avitness.  The  ohjcction  being  over-ruled  by  the  examiner,  llie  answer  is 
taken  down. 

Answer — I  have  no  recollection  of  ever  liearing  him  say  any  thing  to  that 
import  or  effect. 

Question — Did  you  hear  John  Robertson  say  when  speaking  on  the  subject 
of  tampering,  or  at  any  other  time,  tlmt  he  had  written  over  a  paper  on  that 
subject  which  looked  black,  and  that  he  told  Mr.  Miller  lie  had  better  not  call 
him,  or  he  had  better  not  be  called  as  a  witness  on  that  subject,  as  he  would 
do  him  no  good,  or  any  thing  to  that  import  or  efTect  ?  Mr.  Crary  of  counsel 
for  Complainants  objects  to  this  question  on  the  ground  that  it  is  immaterial 
and  irrelevant.  The  examiner  over-rules  the  objection  and  receives  the  tes- 
timony. 

Answer — I  recollect  of  hearing  a  conversation  between  John  Robertson  and 
George  Lourie,  on  the  subject  of  tampering.  George  Lourie  stated  to  John 
Robertson,  that  he  had  told  him  in  Hebron,  that  he  had  AVritten  a  paper  on 
the  subject  of  tampering.  He  had  written  it  over  two  or  three  times,  and  that 
it  still  looked  blacker  and  blacker.  John  Robertson  replied  that  he  did  not 
say  that  it  looked  blacker  and  blacker,  but  that  he  said  that  it  looked  black.' 

Question — Did  John  Robertson  ever  tell  you,  or  did  you  ever  hear  him  sa\', 
in  speaking  of  the  acts  of  Presbytery  towards  Dr.  Bullions,  that  Presbytery 
went  on  so  fast  in  their  conduct  or  measures,  that  he  had  not  time  to  think, 
and  that  their  proceedings  were  rash,  precipitate  and  unjust  ?  Mr.  Clark  of 
counsel  for  Complainants,  objects  to  the  question  on  the  ground  that  is  imma- 
terial and  irrelevant.  The  examiner  over- rules  the  objection  and  receives  the 
testimony. 

Answer — I  have  heard  him  say  something  to  that  effect. 

Question — Did  John  Robertson  vote  against  the  suspension  of  Dr.  Bullions 
on  the  fifth  of  October,  1S37  ?  Mr.  Crary  of  counsel  for  Complainants,  ob- 
jects to  this  question  on  the  ground  that  it  is  immaterial  and  irrelevant,  and 
that  it  is  improper,  and  how  the  judges  individually  voted  cannot  be  enquired 
into,  or  their  individual  opinions.  The  objection  is  over-ruled  by  the  exami- 
ner and  the  evidence  received. 

Answer — It  is  my  impression  that  he  did  vote  against  the  suspension. 

Question — Did  John  Robertson  also  vote  at  the  pro  re  nata  meeting  in  Cam- 
bridge, on  the  14th  November,  1837,  against  excluding  Messrs.  Pringle,  Good- 
willie  and  White,  from  their  seats  in  Presbytery.  Mr.  Crary  of  counsel  for 
Complainants  objects  to  this  question  on  the  same  ground  as  last  before  given. 
The  examiner  over-rules  the  objection  and  receives  the  testimony. 

Answer — He  did. 

JAMES  LOURIE. 

Sworn,  examined,  and  subscrib-  ) 
ed  this  13th  day  of  July,  in  > 
the  year  1842,  before  me,  ) 

JAMES  GIBSON,  Examiner  in  Chancery. 


IN    CHANCERY. 
Before  the  Chancellor. 

William  Stevenson,  ct  al.     ) 

vs,  /      James  Lourie's  re-examinntion. 

Alexander  Bullions,  ei  al.     ) 


James  Lourie,  a  witness  produced  on  the  part  of  the  Complainants  in  the 
above  entitled  cause,  and  examined  by  Mr.  Clark  of  counsel  for  said  Com- 
plainants, and  cross-examined  by  Mr.  Allen  of  counsel  for  Defendants,  being 
now  re-examined  by  Mr.  Clark,  deposeth  as  follows,  viz: 

Question — What  induced  you  to  leave  Dr.  Bullions?  Mr.  Allen  of  counsel 
for  Defendants  objects  to  this  question,  as  irrelevant  and  immaterial.  The  ex- 
aminer over-rules  the  objection  and  receives  the  testimony. 

Answer — Because  I  believed  that  Dr.  Bullions  and  those  who  had  signed  the 
affidavit,  had  practically  renounced  some  of  the  principles  and  forms  of  Pres- 
byterial  Church  government.  Another  reason  was  that  if  Dr.  Bullions  had 
been  illegally  and  unjustly  deposed,  it  was  not  therefore  a  scriptural  and  jus- 
tifiable reason  for  me  to  dissolve  my  connection  with  the  Associate  Church,  for 
if  it  was  in  his  case,  a  justifiable  reason  it  would  have  been  in  the  case  of  any 
other  minister  in  connection  with  the  Associate  Church,  if  he  should  be  un- 
justly and  illegally  deposed.  Mr.  Allen  objects  further  to  this  answer  that  it 
gives  the  reason  of  the  witness  and  his  argument  with  himself  why  he  chang- 
ed his  mind. 

Question — Why  do  you  think  the  acknowledgement  of  Dr.  Bullions  was  not 
satisfactory?  Mr.  Allen  of  counsel  for  Defendants  objects  to  this  question  same 
as  above,  including  those  mentioned  after  last  answer. 

Answer — He  did  not  acknowledge  that  he  had  committed  any  sin.  He  said 
that  "if  he  had"  &c.,  and  at  the  time  he  offered  to  prove  that  he  did  not  utter 
this  language.  Upon  after  reflection  I  came  to  the  conclusion  that  it  was  not 
satisfactory. 

Question — When  did  John  Robertson  make  the  remarks  relative  to  the  rash 
and  precipitate  conduct  of  Presbytery  in  Dr.  Bullions'  case  ? 

Answer — I  do  not  recollect  of  his  saying  that  they  Avent  so  fast  that  he  had 
not  time  to  think,  but  I  recollect  of  hearing  him  say  in  the  presence  of  some 
of  the  Session  and  Congregation,  in  the  lobby  of  the  Church,  before  the  Con- 
gregation meeting  commenced,  that  they^  were  rash,  precipitate  and  unjust- 
This  was  soon  after  Dr.  Bullions   was  suspended. 

The  examination  of  this  witness  being  closed,  it  is  consented  and  agreed 
by  the  parties,  that  if  Mr.  John  Robertson  and  Mr.  George  Lourie  do  not  agree 
in  the  number  of  the  communicants  in  the  Cambridge  Congregation  in  June, 
1838,  and  as  to  what  portion  or  number  of  them  are  now  adherents  of  Dr. 
Bullions,  and  what  portion  or  number  of  them  are  now  adherents  of  Presby- 
tery, and  submit  the  same  as  evidence  in  this  cause,  before  the  closing  of 
proofs  on  the  part  of  Complainants,  or  in  a  reasonable  time  after  that,  this 
witness, .James  Lourie,  may  and  shall  be  recalled  and  examined  on  this  sub- 
ject, with  the  like  effect  as  if  he  were  now  examined  thereon. 

And  that  the  subject  in  relation  to  all  moneys  which  had  at  any  time  pre- 
vious to  June,  18.38,  been  given,  subscribed,  paid,  or  in  any  way  received  by 
or  for  the  benefit  of  the  Cambridge  Congregation,  and  how  much  thereof  had 
■been  paid,  donated  or  received  from  the  adherents  of  each   side,  respectively, 


IOC) 

as  they  arc  now  divided,  and  all  siuns  fron  persons  who  are  now  dead  or  have 
removed  from  said  Conoregalion,  may  in  like  manner  be  testified  by  said  Jas. 
Lourie,  unless  in  like  manner  agreed  upon. 

.JAMES  LOURIE. 
Sworn,  examined  luid  subscribed,  ) 
this    ]3th  day    of  July,   in   the  ^ 
year  1842,  before  me,  ) 

JAMES  GIBSON,  Examiner  in  Chancery. 
I  certify  the   foregoing  to  be  a  correct  copy   of  tlio   Deposition  of  James 
Lourie,  as  examined   and  compared  with   the  original,  liy  me. 

JAS.  GIBSON,  Examiner  in  Chancery. 


— O©©— 


INCHANCERY, 

Before  the  Chancellor, 


William  Stevenson,  et  at.     ) 

vs.  >      Deposition  of  Robert  Kerr. 

Alexander  Bullions,  et  al.    ) 


Deposition  of  Robert  Kerr,  a  witness  produced  on  the  part  of  the  Complain- 
ants and  sworn  and  examined  in  a  certain  cause  now  pending  in  the  court  of 
Chancery,  of  the  State  of  New- York,  before  the  Chancellor  of  said  state  where- 
in William  Stevenson,  William  McGeoch,  Edward  Small,  John  McArthur, 
James  McArthur,  Robert  McArthur,  Peter  McArthur,  George  Small,  James 
Arnot,  John  Arnot,  Edward  Cook,  John  Robertson,  Thomas  McMorris,  James 
Hoy,  JohnMcDoual,  Isaac  Ashton,  John  Foster  and  William  Livingston,  mem- 
bers of  the  Church  in  full  communion,  known  as  the  Associate  Congregation 
of  Cambridge  of  the  county  of  Washington  and  the  State  of  New-York,  ad- 
hering to  the  principles  of  the  Associate  Presbytery  of  Pennsylvania,  formerly, 
now  the  Associate  Synod  of  North  America  arc  Complainants,  and  Alexander 
Bullions,  James  Shiland  Robert  McClelland,  Peter  Hill,  Trustees  of  the  Asso- 
ciate Congregation  of  Cambridge,  of  the  county  of  Washington,  adhering  to 
the  principles  of  the  Associate  Presbytery  of  Pennsylvania,  formerly,  noAV  the 
Associate  Synod  of  North  America,  are  Defendants  on  the  part  of  the  said 
Complainants  before  James  Gibson,  one  of  the  examiners  in  Chancery  of  said 
State,  at  the  house  of  Chester  Safford,jr.  in  the  town  of  Salem  in  the  County  of 
Washington,  on  the  14th  day  of  July,  in  the  year  1842,  as  follows,  viz:  Mr. 
Allen,  of  Counsel  for  Defendants  objects  to  this  witness,  that  he  is  interested. 
Whereupon  the  witness  after  having  been  sworn  on  his  voir  dire  deposeth  as 
follows,  viz  : 

Question — Are  you  interested  in  the  event  of  this  suit  ? 

Answer — I  do  not  know  that  I  am  now. 

Question — Have  you  contributed  any  thing,  or  are   you  to   contribute  any 
thing  towards  carrying  it  on  ? 

Answer — I  did  once  contribute;  it  was  before  the  commencement  of  the  suit, 
and  for  the  purpose  of  commencing  or  taking  advice. 

Question — How  much  did  you  contribute? 

Answer — T^venty  five  dollars. 

Question — When  was  it.     How  long  before  the  suit  was  commenced  ? 

Answer — I  think  it  was  in  the  summer  of  1838,  after  the  division  took  place. 

Question — Did  you  sign  a  subscription  paper  to  contribute  toward  expenses 
of  the  suit  ? 


167 

Answer — I  am  not  positive  that  the  suit  was  commenced  at  the  time  I  signed. 
Tlie  contribution  was  to  take  counsel  and  I  do  not  know  but  to  commence  a 
suit.     It  was  to  take  counsel,  and  if  counsel  advised  to  commence  a  suit. 

Question — Who  had  the  paper  when  you  signed  it  ? 

Answer — I  believe  John  Robertson  had  it. 

Question — Did  he  keep  it  after  you  signed  it  ? 

Answer — I  think  he  did. 

Question — Are  you  a  member  of  the  church  or  body  of  which  John  Robert- 
son and  others  are  members,  and  which  claims  to  be  the  Associate  Congrega- 
tion of  Cambridge  ? 

Answer — I  am  not  a  member. 

Question — Are  you  a  hearer  or  adherent  of  that  body? 

Answer — I  am.     I  worship  there. 

Question — Is  your  wife  a  member  of  that  church  or  body,  and  also  some 
other  members  of  your  family  ? 

Answer — My  wife  is. 

Question — If  the  church  building  which  is  now  the  subject  of  controversy 
in  this  suit  should  be  recovered  in  this  suit,  Avith  the  other  property,  do  you 
calculate  and  expect  to  attend  church  in  it  and  occup)-  the  building  with  the 
Complainants  and  their  adherents  ?  Mr.  Clark,  of  Counsel  for  Complainants, 
objects  to  this  question,  on  the  ground,  that  his  expectation  is  no  ground  of  ex- 
clusion as  a  witness  ;  and  the  property  belongs  only  to  those  in  full  commun- 
ion, and  that  the  question  is  immaterial,  and  that  the  interest  is  remote  and 
contingent.  The  Examiner  over-rules  the  objection  and  receives  the  testimo- 
ny. 

Answer — I  do,  if  I  am  there  at  that  time. 

The  deposition  being  read  to  the  witness,  he  states  that  in  answer  to  the 
question,  whether  "  he  is  a  hearer  or  adherent  of  that  body"  that  he  would 
answer,  that  he  attends  public  worship  there.  That  is  all  I  mean  by  my  an- 
swer to  that  question.     It  is  the  only  church  I  generally  attend. 

ROBERT  KERR. 

Sworn,  examined  and  subscribed 
this  14th  day  of  July,  in  the  year 
1842,  before  me, 

JAMES  GIBSON,  Examiner  in  Chancery, 


-***'3©Q***' 


IN  CHANCERY, 
Before    the    Chancellor. 


William  Stevenson,  et  al.    ) 

vs.  >  Cross-examinatian  on  voir  dire  of  Robert  Kerr, 

Alexander  Bullions,  et  al.   ) 


Robert  Kerr,  a  witness  produced  on  the  part  the  Complainants,  in  this  cause, 
being  challenged  by  the  Defendants  therein,  on  the  ground  of  interest,  and  ex- 
amined therein  by  Mr.  Allen,  of  counsel  for  said  Defendants,  is  now  cross  ex- 
amined by  Mr.  Clark,  of  counsel  for  said  Complainants,  and  deposeth  as  fol- 
lows, viz : 

Question — Did  you  ever  agree  in  an^  way,  directly  or  indirectly,  to  contrib- 
ute or  pay  any  sum  towards  this  controversy  or  suit  other  than  the  $25  00  spo- 
ken of  before  ?  Mr.  Allen,  of  counsel  for  Defendants,  objects  to  the  question 
on  the  grounds  that  the  paper  which  he  says  he  signed  is  in  the  possession  of  John 


16S 

Robertson,  one  o(  tnc  Coni|)l;iin;nils,  and  is  llie  best  evidence  of  its  contents 
and  sliould  be  produced.  The  cxaiiiincr  over-rules  tlie  objection  and  the  an- 
swer is  taken  down. 

Answer — J  never  did. 

Question — Have  you  unJlornily  refiised  since  that  to  give  any  thin^  or  con- 
tribute any  thing  towards  it? 

Answer — I  have  reliised. 

Question — Have  you,  or  do  you  claim  any  interest  in  the  properly  in  contro- 
versy 1 

Answer — No,  I  cannoi  say  that  I  do. 

Question — Did  you  refuse  to  sign  any  paper  oC  adherence  with  or  to  the 
Complai)iants  in  this  cause,  or  to  the  minister  called  by  them  ?  Mr.  Alien  of 
counsel  for  Defendants,  objects  to  this  question  on  the  grounds  that  if  a  paper 
Avas  presented  to  him  to  sign,  the  paper  should  be  produced.  The  examiner 
over-rules  the  objection  and  receives  the  answer. 

Answer — I  did  not  refuse.  There  was  two  papers  at  the  time  they  gave 
the  "  call  "  to  Mr.  Reed  ;  one  was  for  members,  and  the  other  was  for  those 
who  attended  there,  but  who  were  not  members.  1  think  I  signed  the  one 
that  was  not  for  members  of  the  Church  to  sign. 

ROBERT  KERR. 

Sworn,  examined  and  subscribed,  ) 
this  14th  day  of  July,  in  the  > 
year  1842,  before  me,  ) 

JAS.  GIBSON,  Examiner  in  Chaticery. 


— ©©©— 


IN    CHANCERY, 
Before   the    Chancery 


William  Stevenson,  et  ah    J  Ro^^j^t  k^kr's  further  direct  exammation  on 

vs.  /  •      )• 

I  VillV  (live 

Alexander  Bullions,  ct  al.   ) 


Robert  Kerr,  a  witness  produced  by  Complainants,  challenged  and  examin- 
ed by  Defendants,  cross-examined  by  Complainants,  and.  now  re-examined  by 
Defendants'  counsel,  deposeth  further,  as  follows,  viz  : 

Question  by  Mr.  Allen — Did  you   contribute  towards  building  the  brick 
Church  in  controversy,  and  if  so,  how  much  ? 
Answer — I  did  contribute  ten  dollars  ? 

ROBERT  KERR. 
Sworn,  examined  and  subscribed, 
this    14th   day  of  July,  in   the 
year  1842,  before  me, 

JAMES  GIBSON,  Examiner  in  Chanancery. 

Mr.  Allen  of  counsel  for  Defendants  now  objects  that  the  testimony  of  the 
witness  shews  him  to  be  directly  interested  in  the  event  of  this  suit.  The 
examiner  thereupon  over-rules  the  objection  and  receives  the  testimony. 


IN  CHANCERY, 

Before  the  Chancellor. 


William  Stevenson,  et  al.  ) 

vs.  >  Robert  Kerr's  direct-deposition. 

Alexander  Bullions,  et  al.  ) 

Robert  Kerr,  a  witness  produced  on  the  part  of  the  Complainants,  and  ex- 
amined by  Mr.  Clark  of  counsel  deposeth  as  follows,  viz: 

I  am  a  resident  of  Jackson,  Washington  county,  am  a  farmer,  and  fifty  two 
y^ars  of  age. 

Question — Were  you  in  attendance  at  the  Congregational  meeting  in  June, 
1838  at  the  meeting  house  in  Cambridge,  on  Monday  after  the  Synod  confirm- 
ed the  decision  of  Presbytery,  when  Mr.  Goodwillie  was  there,  referred  to  by 
James  Lourie,  in  his  testimony  ? 

Answer — I  was. 

Question — Did  you  hear  Mr.  Goodwillie's  address  to  the  Congregation,  and 
what  did  he  tell  them  they  could  do  in  the  matter  of  Dr.  Bullions,  and  was  Dr. 
Bullions  present?  Mr.  Allen  of  counsel  for  Defendants  objects  to  this  ques- 
tion on  the  grounds  that  it  is  irrelevant  and  immaterial,  and  hearsay  testimony, 
and  if  proper,  Mr.  Goodwillie  is  a  competent  witness  to  prove  it.  The  objec- 
tion is  over-ruled  by  the  examiner  and  the  evidence  received. 

Answer — I  heard  the  address  of  Mr.  Goodwillie.  He  observed  that  he  knew 
of  but  two  courses  they  could  take;  one  was  to  dismiss  Dr.  Bullions,  the  other 
was  to  join  him  in  his  protest  and  declinature.  I  do  not  recollect  whether  Dr. 
Bullions  was  present  just  at  that  time  or  not,  he  was  present  at  the  meeting. 

Question — Did  Dr.  Bullions  then  read  a  paper  to  the  Congregation  which  he 
said  he  had  read  or  presented  to  the  Synod,  and  what  did  he  say  it  was?  Mr. 
Allen  of  counsel  for  Defendants  objects  to  this  question  on  the  grounds  that  it 
is  leading,  and  the  paper  referred  to  should  be  produced,  and  that  is  the  best 
evidence  of  its  contents.  The  objection  is  over-ruled  by  the  examiner  and  the 
answer  received. 

Answer — Dr.  Bullions  read  a  paper  to  the  Congregation,  which  he  said  he 
had  presented  to  the  Synod,  and  I  think  he  called  it  a  protest  and  declinature. 
The  paper  which  Dr.  Bullions  then  read  is  to  be  found  on  pages  23  and  24  of 
exhibit  A,  on  part  of  Complainants. 

Question — Did  there  any  other  person  address  the  Congregation  there  be- 
side Dr.  Bullions  and  Mr.  Goodwillie,  and  if  so  who,  and  what  did  he  say? 
Mr.  Allen  of  counsel  for  Defendants  objects  to  this  question  on  same 
grounds  as  before.  The  examiner  over-rules  the  objection  and  receives  the 
testimony. 

Answer — Several  spoke.  Messrs.  John  Ferine,  Daniel  McFarland,  I  think, 
and  some  others,  I  can't  remember  whom.  Mr.  Ferine  said  he  thought  the 
Congregation  had  been  "  Fresbyterians"  long  enough;  he  now  thought  they 
had  better  be  "  Independents,"  or  words  to  that  effect..  I  think  Mr.  McFar- 
land afterwards  made  a  motion  to  join  Dr.  Bullions  in  his  protest  and  declina- 
ture. 

Question — Was  such  a  motion  made  ? 

Answer — There  was. 

Question — Was  it  carried  by  a  majority  ? 

Answer — It  was. 

Question — What  other  mclion  was  then  made  ? 
22 


s 


170 

Answer — There  was  a  motion  made  to  invite  Dr.  Bullions  to  preach. 

Question — Were  you  present  the  next  Sabbath  after  this  meetinc:,  at  the 
brick  mccting-housG,  when  the  commissioners  of  Synod,  Messrs.  McKie  and 
McGill  were  there  ? 

Answer — I  was  there. 

Question — Was  a  paper  read  and  by  whom,  to  the  people  assembled  on  the 
green  in  front  of  the  church  building  ? 

Answer — There  was  ;  it  was  read  by  Jas.  Shiland. 

Question — Is  the  paper  now  shewn  you  and  marked  as  Exhibit  R,  on  part  of 
Complainants,  that  paper  in  words  ? 

Answer — I  think  it  is. 

Question — "Were  the  doors  of  the  church  opened  on  that  occasion  to  the 
commissioners  and  the  Congregation,  or  were  they  closed  against  them  ? 

Answer — The  doors  were  closed  against  them.  I  saw  Mr.  William  Robert- 
son, one  of  the  Trustees,  as  I  understood,  come  to  the  church  and  tried  the 
three  doors  ;  they  were  all  fastened,  he  could  not  open  any  of  them.  He  ask- 
ed j\Ir.  Hill,  another  of  the  Trustees,  how  it  happened,  and  why  the  doors 
were  closed.  Mr.  Hill  made  reply  for  him  to  wait  and  not  be  in  a  hurry  about 
p-oino-  in,  or  something  to  that  effect.  Mr.  Robertson  replied  back  that  it  was 
time  the  doors  were  opened ;  the  people  had  collected  and  wanted  to  get  into 
the  church.  The  doors  were  not  opened  till  after  commissioners  retired,  and 
I  went  away  about  the  time  the  commissioners  went,  and  a  good  portion  of 
the  people  went  to  another  place  Avhere  the  commissioners  preached. 

Question— After  Mr.  Shiland  read  that  paper.  Exhibit  R,  did  one  of  the 
commissioners  read  a  paper  to  the  people  there  assembled  ? 

Answer — He  did.     It  was  Mr.  BlcGill. 

Question — Is  the  paper  now  produced  and  shown  to  you  that  paper  ?  Mr. 
Allen  of  counsel  for  Defendants,  objects  to  the  question  on  the  ground,  that  it 
is  immaterial  arid  irrelevant.  The  objection  is  over-ruled  by  the  Examiner, 
and  the  answer  taken  dovv'n. 

Answer — I  think  that  is  the  paper  that  he  read,  as  nigh  as  I  can  recollect. 
The  Complainants  produce  this  paper  and  it  is  marked  as  Exhibit  S  on  part  of 
Complainants. 

Question — Was  Mr.  Ferine,  spoken  of  before  by  you  a  member  of  the  As- 
sociate Church  at  Cambridge,  in  the  month  of  June,  in  the  year  1S3S,  and  is 
he  a  follower  and  adherent  of  Dr.  Bullions  ? 

Answer— He  was  a  member  at  that  time  of  the  Associate  Church,  and  is 
now  a  follower  and  adherent  of  Dr.  Bullions,  as  far  as  I  know. 

Question— Was  Mr.  McFarland  then  a  member  of  the  Associate  Church, 
and  is  he  now  an  adherent  of  Dr.  Bullions  ? 

Answer — He  was  at  that  time  a  member  of  the  Associate  Church,  and  is  now 
an  adherent  of  Dr.  Bullions. 

The  deposition  thus  far  being  read  to  the  witness,  he  states  that  he  wishes 
to  correct  it  as  follows : — when  I  say  a  good  portion  Of  the  people  went  to  an 
other  placre,  whee  the  commissioners  preached,  I  mean  that  a  good  many  peo- 
ple went  but  not  a  majority.  ROBERT  KERR. 

Sworn,  examined  and  subscrib-  ) 
ed  this  14th  day  of  July,  in  > 
the  year  1842,  before  me,  ) 

JAMES  GIBSON,  Examiner  in  Chancery, 

I  hereby  certify  that  the  foregoing  is  a  correct  copy  of  the  deposition  of 
Robert  Kerr,  in  this  cause,  as  examined  and  compared  with  the  original  by  me. 

JAS.  GIBSON,  Examiner  in  Chancery. 


IN   CHANCERY, 

Before  the  Oiiancellok. 


William  Stevenson,  ct  al,     ) 

vs.  >  Deposition  of  John  Bishop. 

Alexander  Bullions,  et  al.    ) 


Depositions  of  witnesses  produced  on  the  part  of  the  Complainants,  and 
sworn  and  examined  in  a  certain  cause  noAV  pending  in  the  court  of  Chancery, 
of  the  State  of  New  York,  before  the  Chancellor  of  said  State,  wherein  Wil- 
liam Stevenson,  William  McGeoch,  Edward  Small,  John  McArthur,  James 
McArthur,  Robert  McArthur,  Peter  JMcArthur,  George  Small,  James  Arnot, 
John  Arnot,  Edward  Cook,  John  Robertson,  Thomas  McMorris,  James  Hoy, 
John  McDoual,  Isaac  Ashton,  John  Foster  and  William  Livingston,  members 
of  the  church  in  full  communion,  known  as  the  Associate  Congregation  of  Cam- 
bridge, of  the  county  of  Washington,  and  State  of  New  York,  adhering  to 
the  principles  of  the  Associate  Presbytery  of  Pennsylvania  formerly,  now  the 
Associate  Synod  of  North  America,  are  Complainants,  and  Alexander  Bullions, 
James  Shiland,  Robert  McClelland,  Peter  Hill,  Trustees  of  the  Associate  Con- 
gregation of  Cambridge,  of  the  county  of  Washington,  adhering  to  the  prin- 
ciples of  the  Associate  Presbytery  of  Pennsylvania  formerly,  now  the  Asso- 
ciate Synod  of  North  America,  are  Defendants  on  the  part  of  the  said  Com- 
plainants, before  Jas.  Gibson,  one  of  the  Examiners  in  Chancery  of  said  state, 
at  the  house  of  Chester  Satlbrd,  Jr.,  in  the  town  of  Salem,  in  the  county  of 
Washington,  commencing  on  the  13th  day  of  July,  in  the  year  of  our  Lord 
one  thousand  eight  hundred  and  forty-two,  as  follows,  viz  : 

John  Bishop,  a  witness  produced  as  aforesaid,  on  the  part  of  Complainants, 
and  being  duly  sworn,  and  thereupon  examined  by  Ivlr.  Clark,  of  counsel  for 
said  Complainants,  deposeth  as  follows,  viz  : — I  reside  in  the  town  of  Argyle. 
I  am  a  farmer,  and  am  fifty-four  years  of  age.  I  attended  the  session  of  the 
Presbytery  of  Cambridge,  at  Argyle,  in  October,  1837,  the  two  first  days. 
Dr.  Bullions  was  there. 

Question — Did  you  hear  the  declaration  of  Dr.  Bullions  to  that  Presbytery, 
at  the  time  they  were  about  to  proceed  with  the  trial  of  Mr.  Stalker,  and  if  so, 
what  were  his  words?  Mr.  Allen,  of  counsel  for  Defendants,  objects  to  this 
question  on  the  following  grounds  :  First :  That  it  is  irrelevant  and  immateri- 
al and  not  within  the  issue.  Second :  That  if  the  evidence  is  proper  it  can 
only  be  proved  by  the  production  of  the  minutes.  The  examiner  over-rules 
the  objection  and  receives  the  testimony. 

Answer — I  did  hear  his  declarations  on  that  occasion  ;  his  words  were  as 
near  as  I  can  remember  as  follows  :  After  the  Presbytery  had  opened  and  pro- 
ceeded with  some  other  business,  and  were  about  to  take  up  the  trial  of  Messrs. 
Miller  and  Anderson,  on  complaint  of  Mr.  Stalker,  Dr.  Bullions  got  up  and 
wished  the  trial  to  be  postponed  for  that  time  on  account  of  the  fewness  of 
the  members  present,  until  there  could  be  a  fuller  meeting,  and  till  Mr.  Pringle 
and  Mr.  Goodwillie  were  present. 

He  stated  that  most,  if  not  all  of  the  clerical  members  present  were  involved 
in  the  issue.  That  there  were  some  of  the  members  of  this  court  who  were 
not  fit  to  sit  in  any  court,  and  for  the  truth  of  it  I  refer  you  to  your  neighbor 
George  Mairs  and  Rev.  Peter  Gordon.     Some  of  the  members  of  Presbytery, 


5^^ 


172 


then  interrupted  Dr.  Bullions,  saying  he  was  throwing  out  insinuations  against 
members  of  Presbytery,  and  wished  to  know  what  ho  had  reference  to.  I  th ink- 
he  was  then  called  to  name  tlie  persons,  and  accordin;:^  to  the  best  of  my  re- 
membrance Dr.  Bullions  senmcd  to  make  a  halt  and  asked  what  he  was  to 
name  persons  for,  or  words  to  that  effect.  I  think  then  the  member  who  had 
made  the  observation  before,  stated  that  ho  had  been  making  charges  against 
naembers,  and  I  think  repeated  the  words  that  Dr.  Bullions  had  uttered  and 
wanted  to  know  Avho  was  meant,  or  something  like  that. 

Dr.  Bullions  then  denied  that  he  had  used  the  words  which  the  other  mem- 
ber stated  he  had,  and  there  was  then  considerable  difficulty  between  Dr.  Bul- 
lions and  the  other  members.  He  was  called  to  order  by  some  one,  or  more 
of  the  members.  Dr.  Bullions  did  not  come  to  order,  he  continued  speaking 
and  after  some  time  he  was  called  to  order  again  by  the  moderator.  He  did 
not  come  to  order  at  the  first  call  of  the  moderator  and  I  think  he  again  called 
him  to  order  and  threatened  to  impose  silence  upon  him  for  that  silting,  if  he 
dtd  not  come  to  order ;  and  I  think  the  moderator  actually  did  impose  silence 
upon  Dr.  Bullions,  for  that  sitting.  At  some  period  during  the  forenoon,  a 
member  or  members  of  Presbytery,  threatened  him  with  the  infliction  of  a  cen- 
sure of  rebuke  ;  Dr.  Bullions  replied  that  they  might  censure  him  till  they  were 
tired.  I  might  also  remark  here  that  before  Dr.  Bullions  did  submit,  or  about 
the  time  of  his  submission,  they  threatened  to  send  for  a  peace  officer,  or  a  civ- 
il officer  to  arrest  him,  that  they  might  go  on  with  their  business,  or  something 
of  that  import.  Presbytery  after  that  went  on  Avith  their  other  business,  I  be- 
lieve till  they  took  a  recess  for  dinner.  When  they  returned  after  recess  it  was 
proposed  to  take  up  Dr.  Bullions'  case  and  dispose  of  it.  One  member  re- 
plied that  they  could  not  till  the  injunction  of  silence  was  removed.  An  other 
member  replied  that  the  injunction  was  only  for  one  sitting  and  that  it  was 
removed,  or  that  it  had  expired  by  its  own  limitation. 

They  then  called  upon  Dr.  Bullions,  I  think  if  he  was  ready  to  submit  to 
the  rebuke,  or  the  censure.  There  was  then  a  considerable  degree  of  conver- 
sation among  the  members  which  I  do  not  distinctly  remember;  the  next 
thing  which  I  do  distinctly  remember,  he  was  asked  to  submit  to  the  rebuke 
andrefused;  there  was  then  a  proposition  made  to  suspend  Dr.  Bullions.  Some 
time  during  this  discussion  Dr.  Bullions  stated  what  he  said  or  what  he  in- 
tended to  say  during  the  forenoon,  that  if  the  allegations  abroad  were  true, 
there  was  some  members  not  fit  to  sit  in  this  court  and  referred  to  a  document 
in  the  hands  of  George  Mairs,  Jr.,  for  the  truth  or  evidence  of  what  he  asserted. 

The  examination  thus  far  being  read  over  to  the  Avitness  he  states  that  where 
it  states  that  there  was  a  considerable  degree  of  conversation  among  the  mem- 
bers, he  intended  to  say  that  there  was  considerable  conversation  between  Dr. 
Bullions  and  the  other  members.  At  the  time  of  this  meeting  of  Presbyteiy, 
there  were  two  Clergymen  in  the  town  of  Argyle,  of  the  name  of  Mairs.  One 
the  Rev.  George  Mairs.  the  other  the  Rev.  George  Mairs,  Jr.  I  am  a  member 
of  the  Congregation  in  the  town  of  Argyle,  of  which  Mr.  Miller  is  the  pastor, 

JOHN  BISHOP, 

Sworn,  examined  and  subscrib-  ') 
ed  this  13th  day  of  July,  in  > 
the  year  1842,  before  me.        ) 

JAMES  GIBSON,  Examiner  in  Chancery- 


IN    CHANCERY: 

Before  the  Chancellor 


William  Stevenson,  et  al,     ) 

vs.  >      Patrick  McGill's  deposition. 

Alexander  Bullions,  et  al.    ) 


Patrick  McG-ill,  a  witness  produced  on  the  part  of  the  Complainants  in  the 
above  entitled  cause,  before  James  Gibson  one  of  the  examiners  in  Chancery ^ 
in  and  for  the  county  of  Washington,  at  the  house  of  Chester  Safford,  Jr.,  in 
the  town  of  Salem  in  said  county,  on  the  14th  day  of  July,  in  the  year  1842", 
whereupon  being  duly  sworn  and  examined  by  Mr.  Clark  of  counsel  for  said 
Complainants,  he  deposeth  as  follows,  viz : 

Question — State  your  residence,  occupation  and  age. 

Answer — I  reside  in  the  town  of  Cambridge,  am  a  farmer,  and  am  seventy- 
nine  years  of  age. 

Question — How  long  have  you  lived  in  Cambridge  ? 

Answer — I  have  lived  there  ever  since  1774. 

Question — In  1784,  5  and  6  did  you  live  adjoining  Jonathan  French? 

Answer — I  lived  in  those  years,  and  for  many  years  after,  on  the  farm  ad- 
joining that  of  Jonathan  French.  His  house  was  not  over  1-4  of  a  mile  from 
ours.  A  part  of  the  time  he  lived  within  forty  rods  of  us.  I  lived  in  Cam- 
bridge at  the  time  the  meeting  house  was  built,  which  stood  where  the  brick 
meeting  house  now  stands.  I  think  it  was  built  in  the  year  1786,  and  that 
there  was  an  inscription  over  the  door,  to  that  effect.  That  house  was  built 
on  the  land  of  Jonathan  French.  I  knew  John  Blair,  James  Small,  James  Ed- 
dy, James  Irvin,  William  McAulay,  David  French  and  George  Miller,  and  in 
1786  they  all  resided  in  Cambridge,  and  were  members  of  the  Associate  Church 
and  Congregation  of  Cambridge.  I  think  those  men  are  all  dead.  Jonathan 
French  I  have  heard  is  dead.  The  old  meeting  house  was  built  and  stood  on 
a  piece  of  land,  described  in  the  deed,  from  Jonathan  French,  to  the  persons 
above  named. 

Question — How  came  Jonathan  French  to  convey  that  piece  of  ground  of 
which  you  have  spoken  to  the  persons  above  mentioned  ?  Mr.  Allen,  of  coun- 
sel for  Defendants,  objects  to  this  question,  on  the  following  grounds,  viz  : — 
First,  that  it  is  calling  for  parole  evidence  to  contradict  the  deed  itself.  Sec- 
ond, that  it  is  calling  for  evidence  to  contradict  the  sworn  allegation  in  the 
bill  on  that  subject.  Third,  that  it  is  irrelevant  and  immaterial.  The  exami- 
ner over-rules  the  objection  and  receives  the  evidence. 

Answer — I  believe  the  Congregation  met  and  agreed  that  the  lot  belonging 
to  French  was  the  most  central  and  most  convenient.  Jonathan  French  was 
a  member  in  communion  with  the  Associate  Church  and  of  that  Congrega- 
tion. I  believe  as  he  was  a  member  and  for  the  reasons  above  it  was  built  on 
Mr.  French's  lot ;  and  I  understood  in  the  time  of  it  that  Mr.  French  gave  this 
piece  of  land  and  something  more  towards  building  the  church.  Mr.  Allen 
objects  to  the  understanding  of  the  witness  as  improper  testimony.  I  was  a 
member  of  that  Church  and  Congregation  at  that  time  and  continued  so  till  a 
few  years  since. 

Question — What  was  the  general  understanding  in  that  Church  and  Con- 
gregation, as  to  the  consideration  on  which  Jonathan  French  conveyed  that 
land,  at  the  time,  and  always  afterwards.    Mr.  Allen  of  counsel  for  the  De^ 


174 

fendants  objects  to  the  question,  on  same  grounds  as  before  and  also  that  the 
understanding  of  the  witness  is  improper.  The  examiner  over-rules  the  ob- 
jection and  receives  tlie  evidence. 

Answer — There  was  no  (liffcrcnce  of  opinion  in  the  Congregation;  it  was 
well  understood  that  Mr.  French  gave  this  land,  and  a  good  deal  more  for  his 
portion  of  the  expenses  of  building  the  house  ;  he  w^as  a  liberal  man.  The 
new  house  stands  on  the  same  ground  that  the  old  one  stood  on.  I  think  to 
obtain  a  little  more  room,  around  the  new  house  ;  they  swapped  a  piece  with 
Mr.  Stevenson.  The  Cambridge  Congregation  always  occupied  that  house  as 
their  place  of  worship. 

Question — Did  you  convey  a  piece  of  ground  to  the  Trustees,  of  the  Asso- 
ciate Congregation  of  Cambridge,  for  a  manse  house,  near  this  Church,  and  if 
so,  what  piece  of  ground. 

Mr.  Allen  objects  to  this  question  on  the  grounds, — First :  That  there  is  no 
foundation  for  it  in  the  bill ;  that  it  is  immaterial  and  irrelevant  and  not  with- 
in the  issue.  Second:  That  the  deed  itself  is  the  best  evidence,  and  should 
be  produced. 

Mr.  Clark  answers,  that  the  Complainants  have  not  got  the  deed,  and  if  it 
is  on  record,  they  will  produce  a  copy,  and  that  they  say  they  suppose  the  De- 
fendants have  the  custody  of  the  original  deed. 

Mr.  Allen  replies,  that  they  have  not  the  deed  that  they  know  of,  and  have 
not  had  notice  to  produce  the  same,  and  have  not  therefore  looked.  The  ex- 
aminer over-rules  the  objection  and  receives  the  evidence. 

Answer — I  did  convey  one-fourth  of  an  acre  to  them  for  a  manse  house.  It 
was  part  of  an  acre  of  ground,  purchased  by  me  and  my  father,  of  Samuel 
Heath,  but  I  had  the  deed  of  it.  It  was  about  forty  rods  south  from  the  church  ; 
which  piece  of  ground  the  Trustees  conveyed  to  James  Gilmore,  in  exchange 
for  half  an  acre  of  land  on  which  they  afterwards  built  the  manse  house,  giv- 
ing Gilmore  twenty  or  thirty  dollars  as  the  difference.  They  paid  me  nothing 
for  this  land.     I  gave  it  as  my  share  towards  putting  up  the  house. 

PATRICK  McGILL. 

Sworn,  examined,  and  subscrib-  ^ 
ed  this  14th  day  of  July,  in  > 
the  year  1842,  before  me,         ) 

JAMES  GIBSON,  Examiner  in  Chancery. 


IN   CHANCERY. 

EFORE   THE    CHANCELLOR. 


William  Stevenson,  et  al.    "j 

vs.  >      John  Dobbin's,  2d.,  Deposition. 

Alexander  Bullions,  et  al.    ) 


John  Dobbin,  2d,  a  witness  produced  on  the  part  of  the  'Complainants,  in 
(the  above  entitled  cause,  before  James  Gibson,  one  of  the  Examiners  in  Chan- 
,cery  in  and  for  the  county  of  Washington,  at  the  house  of  Chester  Safford,  jr. 
iin  the  town  of  Salem,  in  said  county,  on  the  14th  day  of  July,  in  the  year 
1842,  whereupon,  being  duly  sworn  and  examined  by  Mr.  Clark,  of  counsel 
for  said  Complainants,  deposeth  as  follows,  viz  : — 

Question — State  your  residence,  occupation  and  age. 

Answer— I  reside  in  the  town  of  Jackson,  in  the  county  of  Washington.  I 
am  by  trade  a  cooper,  and  forty-four  years  of  age.     I  was  a  member  of  the 


175 

Associate  Congregation  of  Cambridge  for  many  years.  I  commenced  attend- 
ing as  a  hearer  in  1819  ;  and  soon  after,  in  the  course  of  a  year  or  two,  be- 
came a  member  of  the  church  in  full  communion,  and  continued  so  til]  some 
four  or  five  years  since,  when  I  was  set  off  by  Presbytery  to  the  Salem  Con- 
gregation, over  which  Mr.  Gordon  is  pastor.  I  was  one  of  the  subscribers  for 
building  the  new  church  at  Cambridge.  During  the  time  the  new  church  was 
building  the  congregation  met  in  a  horse-shed  near  the  church.  We  could 
not  occupy  the  old  Church  as  that  was  torn  down  to  get  a^chance  to  set  the 
new  one  on  the  same  ground.  I  believe  the  new  one  covers  the  ground  that 
the  old  one  stood  on.     There  were  reasons  assigned  for  this  at  the  time. 

Question — What  were  those  reasons  ?  Mr.  Allen  of  counsel  for  Defendants 
objects  to  this  question,  on  the  grounds  that  it  is  immaterial  and  irrelevant,  and 
calling  for  hearsay  testimony,  from  others.  The  objection  is  over-ruled  by  the 
examiner  and  the  evidence  received. 

Answer — The  reasons  were  that  they  thought  the  title  better  for  the  Con- 
gregation, to  this  piece  of  ground,  than  to  the  other  piece  where  they  talked 
of  setting  the  new  house.  I  was  a  member  of  the  Associate  Church  in  Cam- 
bridge at  this  time.  I  think  I  attended  a  meeting  of  the  Congregation  to  fix 
the  site  of  the  house.  I  am  sure  there  was  a  meeting,  and  my  impression  is 
that  I  attended  it.  It  was  finally  fixed  where  it  now  stands.  A  majority 
agreed  to  fix  it  there  for  the  reasons  I  have  assigned.  The  Church  was  com- 
menced in  the  spring,  and  finished  so  that  we  went  i"ito  it  in  the  winter.  I 
think  about  the  first  of  January.  While  it  was  building  they  worshiped  un- 
der the  horse  shed.  The  reasons  that  were  then  assigned  why  they  thouo-ht 
the  title  to  this  piece  of  ground  better  than  the  other,  were  that  that  title  was 
given  to  the  Associate  Congregation  of  Cambridge  in  subordination  to  the  As- 
sociate Presbytery  of  Pennsylvania.  Mr.  Allen  objects  to  that  part  of  the  last 
answer  of  this  witness,  which  speaks  of  the  proceedings  of  the  meeting  of  the 
Congregation,  because  there  is  better  evidence  which  should  be  produced. 

Question — Was  it,  or  not,  your  expectation  as  a  subscriber,  that  a  Church 
should  be  erected  which  would  be  a  continuance  of  the  Associate  Church,^ 
theretofore  erected  on  the  same  ground?  The  question  is  objected  to  by  Mr. 
Allen  of  counsel  for  Defendants,  on  the  grounds  that  the  expectation  of  the 
witness  is  immaterial  and  irrelevant,  and  not  proper  testimony.  Objection 
over-ruled. 

Answer — It  was.- 

Question — How  was  it  then  with  the  other  subscribers,  as  far  as  you  know? 
Mr.  Allen  of  counsel  for  the  Defendants  objects  to  the  question  on  the  same" 
grounds  as  before,  and  that  witness  can  not  know  the  expectations  of  others^ 
The  examiner  over-rules  the  objection  and  receives  the  testimony. 

Answer — It  was  the  same  with  them  so  far  as  I  know. 

Question — Did  you  hear  it  conversed  about  by  others  in  the  Congregation? 
Mr.  Allen  of  counsel  for  Defendants  objects  to  the  question  on  same  grounds^ 
as  before,  and  that  what  others  say  is  not  evidence.  The  examiner  over-rules' 
the  objection  and  receives  the  answer. 

Answer — I  heard  a  great  deal  said  upon  the  subject. 

Question— How  much  was  your  subscription  ? 

Auswer — It  appears  by  the  book  to  have  been  fifteen  dollars,  but  I  think  t 
gave  twenty  dollars.  JOHN  DOBBIN,  2nd. 

Sworn,  examined  and  subscrib-  ^ 
ed,  this  14th  day  of  July,  in  > 
the  year  1842,  before  me,  ) 

JAMES  GIBSON,  Examiner  m  Chancery. 


IN    CHANCERY, 
Before   the    Chancellor. 


William  Stevenson,  et  al.    ) 

vs.  >  Deposition  of  John  McArthur,  Jr. 

Alexander  Bullions,  et  al.  ) 


John  McArthur,  jr.,  a  witness,  produced  on  the  part  of  the  Complainants, 
being  duly  sworn  by  the  Examiner,  and  thereupon  examined  by  Mr.  Clark,  of 
counsel  for  Comprainants,  deposeth  as  follows,  viz: 

Question — State  your  residence,  occupation  and  age  ?  I  reside  in  the  town 
of  Salem,  in  Washington  county,  am  a  farmer  and  forty  years  of  age. 

Question— Look  on  the  book  now  presented  and  shewn  to  you,  having  in 
its  title  page  the  words  :  "This  book  is  the  property  of  the  Associate  Con- 
gregation of  Cambridge,  under  the  inspection  of  the  Associate  Presbytery  of 
Pennsylvania."     Have  you  seen  this  book  before  ? 

Answer — I  think  I  have. 

Question — Is  this  the  book  of  record  of  the  Associate  Congregation  of  Cam- 
bridge from  17S9  down  to  March,  in  the  year  18.33  ?  Mr.  Allen,  of  counsel 
for  Defendants,  objects  to  this  question,  on  the  ground  that  it  is  immaterial 
and  irrelevant ;  which  objection  is  over-ruled  by  the  examiner  and  the  evi- 
dence received. 

Answer— I  have  several  times  acted  as  Clerk  pro  fern.,  at  Congregational 
meetings  of  the  Associate  Congregation  of  Cambridge,  when  this  book  was 
produced  by  the  regular  Clerk,  as  the  book  of  records  af  that  Congregation. 
William  Stevenson  was  and  had  been  for  many  years  previous  to  that  timej 
Clerk  and  Treasurer  of  that  Congregation.  Sometimes  at  other  meetings  of 
the  Cono-rep-ation,  other  persons  have  acted  as  Clerks  pro  tern,  by  appointment 
•of  the  Congregation.  It  was  a  common  thing  to  do  this,  although  Mr.  Steven- 
son was  the  regular  Clerk.  I  acted  as  Clerk  pro  tern,  at  a  meeting  of  the 
Congregation  of  the  21st  November,  1826.  The  proceedings  of  that  meeting 
transpired  as  entered  on  the  records  of  the  meetings  in  the  book  produced.  I 
believe  the  book  produced  to  be  the  book  of  records  of  the  proceedings  of  the 
Associate  Congregation  of  Cambridge  of  the  years  that  it  purports  to  be,  and 
much  of  it,  I  know  to  be  the  records  of  the  proceedings  of  the  Congregation. 

Question — ^Is  the  hand  writing  of  the  title  page,  containing  the  words  re- 
peated in  the  first  question,  in  the  same  hand  writing  of  the  entries  in  the 
book  from  the  commencement  of  it,  on  for  several  years  ?  Mr.  Allen  of  coun- 
sel for  Defendants,  objects  to  the  question  on  the  grounds,  that  is  immaterial 
•and  irrelevant,  and  that  the  witness  can  not  know,  but  by  comparison,  which 
is  not  testimony.  The  Examiner  thereupon  over-rules  the  objection  and  re- 
ceives the  testimony. 

Answer — It  appears  to  me  to  be  in  the  same  hand-writing.  Robert  Oliver 
has  been  dead  many  years. 

Question — Look  upon  the  back  of  Exhibit  H  on  part  of  Complainants,    at 
the  superscription  or  direction  thereon  in  the  words 
"  Rev.  A.  Bullions,  D.  D. 
Cambridge, 

N.  Y." 

In  whose  hand-writing  are  those  words  ?  Mr.  Allen  of  counsel  for  Defen- 
dants, objects  to  this  question  on  the  grounds  that  it  is  immaterial  and  irrele- 
vant, and  no  foundation  for  it  in  the  bill.  The  examiner  thereupon  over-rules 
the  objection  and  receives  the  testimony- 


177 

Answer — I  think  it  is  in  the  hand  writing  of  Dr.  Alexander  Bullions.  The 
foot  note  in  the  words 

"  N.  B.     Let  Mr.  D.  Gordon  have  a  reading  of  the  above," 
is  also,  I  think,  in  his  hand  writing.     I  have  seen  Dr.  Bullions  write,  and  am 
acquainted  with  his  hand  writing. 

Question — How  long  have  you  been  acquainted  with  the  Associate  Congre- 
gation of  Cambridge  ? 

Answer — Ever  since  I  have  had  any  recollection. 

Question — What  has  been  the  practice  of  that  Congregation,  as  to  allowing 
persons  who  are  not  in  full  communion,  to  vote  for  Trustees  ?  Mr.  Allen  of 
counsel  for  Defendants,  objects  to  this  question  on  the  following  grounds,  viz : 
that  it  is  irrelevant  and  immaterial.  Whereupon  the  objection  is  over-ruled 
by  the  examiner,  and  the  evidence  received. 

Answer — They  who  were  not  members  in  full  communion,  have  been  ob- 
jected to  once  or  twice,  and  I  think  were  not  permitted  to  vote. 

Question — Were  you  formerly,  and  how  long  a  member  of  the  Associate 
Church  and  of  the  Associate  Congregation  of  Cambridge,  and  are  you  still  a 
member  of  that  Church,  and  what  Congregation  are  you  now  a  member  of? 

Answer — I  was  formerly  a  member  of  the  Associate  Congregation  of  Cam- 
bridge, and  a  member  of  the  Associate  Church  from  the  year  1822,  or  there- 
abouts, and  continued  a  member  of  that  Congregation  till  1832,  when  I  remov- 
ed to  Salem,  and  am  now  a  member  of  the  Associate  Congregation  of  Salem. 
I  am  a  son  of  John  McArthur,  one  of  the  Complainants,  and  the  other  Com- 
plainants of  my  name  are  my  brothers.  George  Lourie  one  of  the  Defendants 
is  my  cousin. 

J.  McARTHUR,JR. 

Sworn,  examined  and  subscribed,  ) 
this  15th  day  of  July,in  the  year  > 
of  our  Lord  1842,  before  me,-      ) 

JAMES  GIBSON,  Examiner  in  Chancery. 

— ^C©— 

IN  CHANCERY. 
Before  the  Chancellor. 


William  Stevenson,  et  al.    ) 

vs.  >      Deposition  of  William  I.  Graham. 

Alexander  Bullions,  ct  al.  ) 


William  I  Graham,  a  witness  produced  on  the  part  of  the  Complainants  in 
the  above  entitled  cause  before  James  Gibson,  one  of  the  examiners  in  Chan- 
cery, at  the  house  of  Chester  Safibrd,  Jr.,  in  the  town  of  Salem,  in  the  county 
of  Washington,  on  the  15lh  day  of  July  in  the  year  1842,  challenged  by  Mr. 
Allen  of  counsel  for  Defendants,  and  on  his  voire  dire  sworn  by  the  examiner, 
and  examined  by  Mr.  Allen  of  counsel  for  said  Defendants,  deposeth  as  follows, 
viz:  Mr.  Allen  states  the  grounds  on  which  he  challenges  this  witness,  to  be 
the  same  as  those  on  which  James  Lourie  was  challenged. 

Question  by  Mr.  Allen — Are  you  interested  in  the  event  of  this  suit? 

Answer — I  do  not  know  of  any  interest  I  have  in  the  event  of  it.  I  am  a 
member  of  the  Church  of  which  Mr.  Robertson,  and  the  other  Complainants  are 
members.  I  was  clerk  pro  tern  of  one  of  the  meetings  of  that  Congregation. 
I  was  also  clerk  pro  tern  of  a  special  meeting  of  the  Congregation,  held  during 
the  last  fall  or  winter.  At  which  it  was  resolved  that  the  remainder  of  the 
23 


178 

money  necessary  to  defray  the  expenses  of  this  suit,  over  and  above  the  snm 
of  $500  00  already  raised,  should  be  raised  in  the  same  proportion  on  the  sub' 
scriptions  theretofore  made,  to  raise  the  five  hundred  Dollars.  There  was  one 
exception,  Mr.  Robert  Kerr,  he  refused  to  agree  to  this,  or  obligate  himself  to 
pay  any  more  than  the  sum  he  had  already  paid.  I  did  not  then,  and  do  not 
now  know  who  the  subscribers  were  to  that  fund,  nor  what  they  had  subscrib- 
ed. 

Question — Suppose  the  brick  church  and  property  in  contest  in  this  suit 
should  be  recovered  by  Complainants,  will  you  not  share  in  the  benefits  to  be 
derived  from  such  recovery,  by  attending  worship  therein  and  enjoying  other 
privileges  attendant  upon  such  recovery  ? 

Answer — If  it  is  recovered,  and  they  should  hold  their  meetings  there,  I 
should  attend  there  undoubtedly.  I  never  have  given  any  thing  towards  the 
property  or  that  church,  and  I  do  not  know  as  it  would  make  any  difference  to  me 
where  I  attend  worship,  but  while  I  reside  in  the  bounds  of  that  congregation, 
I  should  attend  worship  with  them  according  as  I  now  think. 

WILLIAM  I.  GRAHAM. 

Sworn,  subscribed  and  examined  ) 
this  15th  day  of  July,  in  the  year  > 
1842  before  me  ) 

JAMES  GIBSON,  Examiner  in  Chancery. 


-♦»^®@®*w. 


INCHANCERY, 

Before  the  Chancellor. 


William  Stevenson,  et  al.  ) 

vs.  >  Cross  examination  of  Wm.  I.  Graham  on  voire  dire. 

Alexander  Bullions,  et  al.  ) 


William  I  Graham,  a  witness  produced  by  Complainants,  challenged  by  De- 
fendants, and  sworn  on  his  voire  dire,  and  examined  by  Mr.  Allen,  being  now 
cross-examined  by  Mr.  Clark,  says, — I  have  never  given  any  thing,  nor  sub- 
scribed any  thing  towards  the  expenses  of  this  suit,  and  am  in  no  way  bound 
to  pay  any  thing  towards  it. 

Question  by  Mr.  Clark,  of  counsel  for  Complainants — Were  you  a  member 
of  this  congregation  spoken  of  above  by  you  at  the  time  of  the  filing  of  the 
bill  in  this  cause  ?  Mr.  Allen,  of  counsel  for  Defendants,  objects  to  this  ques- 
tion on  the  grounds,  that  it  is  irrelevant  and  immaterial.  The  examiner  over- 
rules the  objection  and  receives  the  testimony. 

Answer — I  was  not.  I  moved  into  the  bounds  of  the  congregation  in  July, 
1839,  but  did  not  attend  worship  there  during  that  season,  but  continued  to  at- 
tend worship  at  Mr,  Gordon's  church  of  which  I  was  a  member,  till  Septem- 
ber I  think  in  the  year  1840.     I  have  never  agreed  to  give  any  thing  toward 

this  suit. 

WILLIAM  I.  GRAHAM. 
Sworn  on  voire  dire,  cross-examined 
and  subscribed  this  15th  day  of  Ju- 
ly, in  the  year  1842,  before  me, 

J  AS.  GIBSON,  Examiner  in  Chancery. 


IN  CHANCERY. 

Before  the  Chancellor, 


William  Stevenson,  et  al.    )     r\-      ,.  •     »•        r  -ur  t    ^ 

'  /     Direct  examination  of  William  I.  Graham, 

.  T>   '  4    7     i  on  voire  dire,  resumed. 

Alexander  Bullions,  et  al.     )  ' 

William  I.  Graham,  a  witness  called  on  the  part  of  the  Complainants,  in 
the  above  entitled  cause,  challenged  by  the  Defendants,  on  the  ground  of  in- 
terest, sworn  on  his  voire  dire,  and  examined  by  Mr.  Allen  of  counsel  for  De- 
fendants, cross-examined  by  Mr.  Clark,  being  now  re-examined  by  Mr.  Allen, 
deposeth  as  follows,  viz  : 

I  am  one  of  the  collectors  of  the  Congregation  above  spoken  of,  regularly 
appointed  by  them.  I  contribute  three  dollars  a  year  towards  the  support  of 
Mr.  Reed,  who  is  the  present  minister  of  that  Congregation. 

WM.  I.  GRAHAM. 
Sworn,  re-examined  and  subscribed,  ) 
this    15th    day   of   July,    in   the  > 
year  1842,  before  me,  ) 

JAMES  GIBSON,  Examiner  in  Chanancery. 
'  Mr.  Allen  of  counsel  for  said  Defendants  thereupon  renews  his  objection  to 
this  witness,  on  the  grounds  that  he  is  directly  interested  in   the  event  of  this 
suit  as  is  shewn  by  his  testimony.     The  examiner  thereupon  over-rules  th» 
objection  and  receives  the  testimony. 


IN  CHANCERY, 

Before  the  Chancellor. 


William  Stevenson,  et  al.    ) 

vs.  >  William  I.  Graham's  direct  Deposition. 

Alexander  Bullions,  et  al.   ) 


William  I.  Graham,  a  witness  produced  on  the  part  of  the  Complainants, 
and  being  sworn  in  chief,  by  the  examiner,  and  examined  by  Mr.  Clark  of 
counsel  for  Complainants,  deposeth  as  follows,  viz : 

Question — State  your  residence,  age  and  occupation  ? 

Answer — I  reside  in  the  town  of  Jackson,  in  tiae  county  of  Washington,  am 
a  farmer,  and  44  years  of  age.  The  Rev.  Archibald  Reid  is  the  settled  Pas- 
tor of  the  Congregation  composed  of  the  Complainants  and  others. 

Question — Does  he  and  this  Congregation  adhere  to  the  Associate  Presby- 
tery of  Cambridge  and  the  Associate  Synod  of  North  America  ?  Mr.  Allen 
of  counsel  for  the  Defendants,  objects  to  this  question  on  the  following  grounds: 
as  calling  for  the  opinion  of  the  witness,  and  is  hearsay  testimony.  The  ex- 
aminer over-rules  the  objection  and  receives  the  testimony. 

Answer — He  and  they  do.  Mr.  John  Robertson  is  the  regular  Clerk  of  this 
Congregation.  He  is  one  of  the  Complainants.  I  have  acted  as  Clerk  pro- 
tein at  meetings  of  the  Congregation;  once  at  the  annual  meeting  in  January, 
1842,  and  one  special  meeting  previous.  I  have  seen  the  records  of  this  Con- 
gregation several  times  within  the  last  year  or  two. 

Question — Are  the  extracts  produced  by  you  a  true  copy  of  the  minutes  of 
that  Congregation,  so  far  as  is  set  forth  therein  ?  Mr.  Allen  of  counsel  for 
Defendants  objects  to  this  question  on  the  following  grounds  : — First :  That 


180 

extracts  arc  not  the  best  evidence,  tliat  the  book  itself  should  be  produced,  sa 
that  Defendants  can  have  the  benefit  of  it,  as  well  as  Complainants.  Second; 
That  the  extracts  do  not  contain  but  a  portion  of  the  minutes.  Third:  That 
the  testimony  is  irrelevant  and  immaterial.  ]\Ir.  Clark  answers  that  the  book 
is  present,  and  Defendants  may  make  any  extracts  from  it  they  please,  and 
may  at  any  time  have  access  to  the  book,  and  Complainants  will  furnish  any 
extracts  froni  it  that  Defendants  will  designate.  Mr.  Allen  of  counsel  for  De- 
fendants thereupon  waived  oil  objections  above  taken,  except  the  third. 

Answer — It  is  a  true  copy  of  the  minutes  of  that  Congregation,  so  far  as  is 
set  forth  therein,  commencing  under  the  date  of  July  12th,  1838,  and  continu- 
ing down  to  January  4th,  1842,  inclusive. 

This  document  is  now  produced  by  Complainants,  and  is  marked  as  Exhib- 
it T,  on  part  of  said  Complainants.  The  remainder  of  Fxhibit  T,  on  part  of 
Complainants,  being  the  first  three  leaves  thereof,  are  true  extracts  from  a  book 
purporting  to  be  the  records  or  minutes  of  the  Associate  Congregation  of  Cam- 
bridge, the  title  page  of  which  is  in  the  following  words: — "This  book  is  the 
property  of  the  Associate  Congregation  of  Cambridge,  under  the  inspection  of 
the  Associate  Presbytery  of  Pennsylvania ;"  and  is  the  same  book  testified  to 
by  John  McArthur,  Jr.  as  marked  by  the  examiner.  I  have  compared  the 
said  extracts  with  the  original  entries  in  the  said  book,  and  find  them  correct. 

Question — Is  there  a  stone  placed  in  the  wall  of  the  brick  church  at  Cam- 
bridge, on  the  innerside  of  the  entrance,  in  front  of  the  middle  front  door,  with 
an  inscription  thereon,  if  so,  what  is  that  inscription  ?  Mr.  Allen  of  counsel 
for  Defendants  objects  to  this  question  on  the  ground  that  it  is  irrelevant  and 
immaterial.     The  examiner  over-rules  the  objection  and  receives  the  testimony. 

Answer — There  is,  having  the  following  inscription  thereon  :  "  The  Asso- 
ciate Presbyterian  Church.     First  built,  1786— Re-built,  1833." 

WM.  I,  GRAHAM. 

Sworn,  examined  and  subscribed,  ) 
this  July  I5th,  1842,  before  > 
me,  ) 

JAS.  GIBSON,  Examiner  in  Chancery. 

I  certify  that  the  foregoing  contains  a  correct  copy  of  the  Depositions  of 
John  Bishops,  Patrick  McGill,  John  Dobbin,  2d,  John  McArthur,  Jr.,  and  Wil- 
liam I.  Graham,  in  the  above  entitled  cause,  as  examined  and  compared  with 


the  original,  by  me, 


JAS.  GIBSON,  Examiner  in  Chancery, 


IN  CHANCERY. 

Before  the  Chancellor,. 


William  Stevenson,  et  al  Compl'ts.       >    Deposition  of  Rev.  Thomas  Gooi>- 

vs.  > 

Alexander  Bullions,  et  ah  Defend'ts.    ) 


WILLIE. 


Deposition  of  witnesses  produced,  sworn  and  examined  in  a  certain  cause 
now  pending  in  the  Court  of  Chancery  of  the  State  of  New  York,  before  the 
Chancellor  of  said  State,  wherein  William  Stevenson,  William  Robertson, 
William  McGeoch,  Edward  Small,  John  McArthur,  James  McArthur,  Robert 
McArthur,  Peter  McArthur,  George  Small,  John  Arnot,  James  Arnot,  Edward 
Cook,  John  Robertson,  Thomas  McMorri^,  James  Hoy,  John  McDoual,  Isaae 


181 

Ashton,  John  Foster,  and  William  Livingston,  members  of  the  Church  in  full 
communion,  known  as  the  Associate  Congregation  of  Cambridge,  of  the  coun- 
ty of  Washington,  in  the  State  of  New  York,  adhering  to  the  principles  of 
the  Associate  Presbytery  of  Pennsylvania  formerly,  now  the  Associate  Synod 
of  North  America,  are  Complainants,  and  Alexander  Bullions,  James  Coulter, 
James  Shiland,  Robert  McClelland,  Peter  Hill,  Trustees  of  the  Assoctate 
Congregation  of  Cambridge,  together  with  the  Associate  Congregation  of 
Cambridge,  of  the  County  of  Washington,  adhering  to  the  principles  of  the 
Associate  Presbytery  of  Pennsylvania  formerly,  now  the  Associate  Synod  of 
North  America,  are  Defendants,  on  the  part  of  the  said  Complainants,  before 
Jas.  Gibson,  one  of  the  Examiners  in  Chancery,  of  said  State,  at  his  office,  in 
the  town  of  Salem,  in  the  County  of  Washington,  on  the  12th  day  of  June, 
in  the  year  1841,  as  follows,  viz: 

The  Rev.  Thomas  Goodwillie,  a  witness  produced  on  the  part  of  the  Com- 
plainants, in  this  cause,  being  duly  sworn  and  examined  by  Mr.  Crary  of  coun- 
sel for  said  Complainants,  deposeth  as  follows,  viz : — 

I  am  a  resident  of  the  town  of  Barnet,  in  the  County  of  Caledonia,  in  the 
State  of  Vermont.  I  am  forty  years  of  age,  and  am  a  minister  of  the  Gos- 
pel. I  am  a  minister  of  the  Associate  Church,  belonging  to  the  Synod  of  North 
America.  In  the  year  1839,  and  also  in  the  year  1838,  I  belonged  to  the  Pres- 
bytery of  Vermont,  adhering  to  the  Synod  of  North  America.  I  was  acquain- 
ted with  Claude  Gilfilland.  He  was  then  Clerk  of  the  Presbytery  of  Vermont. 
The  Presbytery  in  the  year  1839,  made  report  to  the  Synod  of  North  Amer- 
ica.    The  report  was  published  in  the  minutes  of  Synod. 

Mr.  Crary  produced  a  printed  book  or  pamphlet,  which  the  witness  states  to 
be  the  minutes  of  the  Synod  of  North  America,  for  the  year  1839,  and  which 
the  witness  also  says  contains  the  report  of  the  Presbytery  of  Vermont,  for 
that  year.  Mr.  Crary  of  counsel  for  Complainants  offers  this  pamphlet  as  an 
Exhibit  in  this  cause.  Mr.  Allen  of  counsel  for  Defendants  objects  to  the  ad- 
mission of  the  report  of  Presbytery  of  Vermont,  on  page  18  of  said  book,  as 
being  improper  and  irrelevant,  and  no  proper  foundation  for  it  in  the  bill  of 
complaint,  filed  in  this  cause.  The  examiner  over-rules  the  objection  and  re- 
ceives the  said  book  or  pamphlet,  which  is  hereto  annexed  aud  marked  as  Ex- 
hibit A. 

It  is  accordind  to  the  custom  of  the  Presbyteries  attached  to  the  Synod  of 
North  America,  to  make  reports  to  Synod  at  every  yearly  meeting.  The  re- 
port may  be  transmitted  to  Synod  in  any  way.  It  is  signed  by  the  Clerk  or 
moderator  of  the  Presbytery.  Every  thing  is  not  returned,  but  only  the  most 
important  operations  of  the  Presbytery.  The  report  of  the  Presbstery  of  Ver- 
mont made  to   Synod  in  the  year   1839,  is  correct  and  true. 

Mr.  Crary  of  counsel  for  Complainants,  asks  the  witness  the  following 
question — In  the  year  1838,  did  the  Rev.  Dr.  Bullions  make  submission  to  the 
Presbytery  of  Vermont?  The  question  is  objected  to  by  Mr.  Allen  of  counsel 
for  Defendants  for  the  same  reasons  as  stated  above,  to  the  report.  The  ex- 
aminer over-rules  the  objection  and  receives  the  testimony. 

The  witness  states  that  he  did  so  make  submission.  On  this  submission, 
Dr.  Bullions  made  confession,  after  which  he  submitted  to  the  censure  of 
Presbytery,  and  was  thereupon  restored  by  the  Presbytery  to  Gospel  ministry. 
The  censure  and  submission  are  stated  truly  in  the  report  of  the  Presbytery 
to  Synod.  Dr.  Bullions  did  make  confession  to  the  Presbytery.  In  cases 
where  censure  is  submitted  to,  confession  is  always  previously  made.  It  was 
so  in  this  case.  Dr.  Bullions  made  confession,  submitted  to  censure,  and  was 
thereupon  restored.     The  charges  against  him  were  originally  laid  by  the  Pres- 


1S2 

bylery  of  Cambridge.  The  Presbytery  of  Vermont  liad  a  copy  of  the  origi- 
nal charges  made  against  Dr.  Bullions  by  the  Presbytery  of  Cambridge.  All 
the  members  of  the  Presbytery  of  Vermont  were  members  of  the  Synod  which 
acted  on  Dr.  Bullions'  case,  and  of  course  had  all  the  knowledge  of  the  case, 
that  the  Synod  had.  The  Presbytery  of  Vermont  had  no  other  evidence  of 
the  truth  of  the  charges  that  I  recollect  of. 

Mr.  Crary  asks  whether  the  Presbytery  of  Vermont  had  the  evidence  be- 
fore them,  and  tlie  charges  which  were  before  the  Presbytery  of  Cambridge  at 
the  time  Dr.  Bullions  was  deposed? 

Answer — We  had  all  the  testimony  before  us,  at  the  Presbytery,  which  was 
before  the  Synod. 

Mr.  Crarv  of  counsel  for  Complainants  asks  whether  Dr.  Bullions  confessed 
before  the  Presbytery  of  Vermont,  the  truth  of  what  was  proved  before  the 
Presbytery  of  Cambridge,  at  the  time  he  was  deposed  ?  Mr.  Allen  of  counsel 
for  Defendants  objects  to  this  question  on  the  grounds  above  stated,  as  to  the 
admission  of  the  report,  and  also  that  the  minutes  of  Presbytery  would  be 
better  evidence  than  parole  testimony.  Mr.  Crary  insists  upon  the  evidence 
and   it  is  received  by  the  examiner,  subject  to  the  objection. 

The  witness  states  that  the  members  of  the  Presbytery  of  Vermont  did  not 
consider  all  the  charges  proved  against  him,  and  therefore  protested  before 
the  Synod  against  its  proceedings,  and  for  this  reason  did  not  require  confes- 
sion of  every  thing  charged  against  him.  The  Presbytery  of  Vermont  had 
no  evidence  before  them,  other  than  what  they  derived  from  being  members 

of  the  Synod.  ^  ^ 

■^  THOMAS  GOODWILLIE. 

Sworn,  examined  and  subscrib-  ) 
ed  this  12th  day  of  June,  in  > 
the  year  1841,  before  me.        ) 

JAMES  GIBSON,  Examiner  in  Chancery. 


IN    CHANCERY: 

Before  the  Chancellor 


William  Stevenson,  et  al,  Comp'lts. 

vs. 
Alexander  Bullions,  et  al  Defen'ts. 


Thomas  Goodwillie,  a  witness  already  produced  on  the  part  of  the  Com- 
plainants in  the  above  entitled  cause,  and  thereupon  examined  by  Mr.  Crary  of 
counsel  for  said  Complainants,  being  now  cross-examinedby  Mr.  Allen  of  coun- 
sel for  said  Defendants,  deposeth  on  his  said  cross-examination  as  follows,  viz  : 

I  have  been  a  minister  of  the  Associate  Church  since  the  year  1826.  I 
have  also  since  that  time  been  a  member  of  the  Associate  Synod.  I  claim  i  to 
be  a  minister  of  that  Church  according  to  its  rules  and  practice.  I  ana  a  sus- 
pended minister,  but  Synod  admits  me  to  be  still  a  minister.  At  the  time  Dr. 
Bullions  was  admitted  into  the  Presbytery  of  Vermont,  that  Presbytery  was  a 
regular  Presbytery  of  the  Associate  Church,  according  to  its  rules  and  practice. 
As  such  Presbytery,  it  had  full  power,  authority  and  jurisdiction  to  receive 
Dr.  Bullions  into  the  Church. 

I  cannot  recollect  the  whole  of  the  confession  made  by  Dr.  Bullions,  at  the 
time  of  his  reception  into  the  Church.  He  confessed  that  if  the  words  alleged 
to  have  been  spoken  by  him  before  the  Presbytery  of  Cambridge,  were  so 


183 

spoken,  he  was  sorry  for  it,  and  retracted  them  if  he  uttered  them.     The  Pres- 
bytery had  a  copy  of  the  original  charges  made  by  the  Presbytery  of  Cam- 
bridge, and  they  dealt  with  Dr.  Bullions  upon  those  charges.     The  confession 
made  by  Dr.  Bullions,  was  entered  upon  the  minutes  of  Presbytery.     The  rea- 
sons  of  Presbytery  of  Vermont  for  receiving  Dr.  Bullions,  have  never  been 
called  for  by   Synod,  nor  have  the  terms  of  his  submission  to  Presbytery,  and 
therefore    the  true   merits  of  the  case  have  never  been  before  Synod.     The 
Presbytery  of  Cambridge  by  excluding  members  of  its  body  from  seats  on  the 
trial  of  his  case,  rendered  themselves  incompetent  to  try  Dr.   Bullions.     I  ful- 
ly believe  that   the   deposition   and  excommunication  of  Dr.  Bullions,  by  the 
Presbytery  of  Cambridge,  was  illegal  according  to  the   rules   of  discipline  in 
that  Church,  because  there  was  not  sufficient  cause  for  his   deposition  and  ex- 
communication and  because  the  Presbytery  acted  in  an  unlegaland  disordered 
manner  in  deposing  and  excommunicating  him.     That  he  was  tried  originally 
in  October,  in  the  year  1837,  when  he  was  deprived  of  the   liberty  of  speech 
by  the  Presbytery,  and  thus  had  not  the  means  of  defending  himself,  as  the 
public  issue  of  that  Presbytery  clearly  shewed.     That  they  deprived  members 
of  Presbytery  from  seats  on  his  trial;  and  those  who  complained  that  he  had 
offended  them  retained  their  seats  in  the  Presbytery,  and  acted  as  his  judges 
and  condemned  him.     Thus  acting  contrary  to  a  rule  of  disipline,  that  parties 
concerned  shall  not  act  on  the  trial.     That  they  refused  illegally  his  protest 
and  appeal  against  the  censure  voted  by  Presbytery,  in  October  in  the  year 
1837;  they  did  not  admit  his  declinature,  of  their  authority  to  bar  the  way  of 
a  trial,  until  his  case  was  brought  legally  before   Synod.     This  I  believe  was 
a  warrantable  declinature,  because  they  had  previously  refused  his  protest  and 
appeal ;  because  they  had  so  mutilated  the  court  by  the  rejection  of  its  members 
on  his  trial;  and  because  those  who  were  parties  concerned  took  an  active  part 
in  rejecting  those  members,  and  that  without  sufficient  cause;  and  then  after 
their  rejection,  they  themselves  judged  and  condemned  him.     In  the  case  of 
Dr.  Bullions  his  protest  and  appeal  ought  to  have  sisted  all  farther  proceedings 
but  contrary  to  rule  the  Presbytery  proceeded  to  suspend  him  from  his  office 
and  the  communion  of  the  Church.     In  this  case   the  legal  effect  of  a  war- 
rantable  declinature,  would  be  to  stay  all  proceedings,  until  his  case  was 
brought  before  the  Synod.     In  the  case  of  such  illegal  decisions  and  opinions  it 
is  the  duty  of  the  person  proceeded   against,  to  protest  and  appeal.    The  very 
foundation  of  the  Associate  Church,  was  the  right  of  protest  and   appeal  froni 
the  illegal  decisions  and  proceedings  of  all  church  judicatures.    Mr.  Erskine,  the 
founder  of  this  Church  under  his  protest  and  appeal,  claimed  the  right  to  preach 
and  exercise  the  gospel  ministry.     The  principles  on  which  the   Church  was 
founded  in  Scotland  by  Mr.  Erskine  are  now  those  of  the  Synod  of  North 
America  in  the  main.     At  the  union  in   1782  the  minority  of  the  Associate 
Presbytery  of  Pennsylvania,   although  the  majority  of  the  Presbytery  had 
joined  in,  the  union  declared  themselves  to  be  still  the  Associate  Presbytery  of 
Pennsylvania,  and  this  act  of  the  minority  lies  at  the  foundation  of  the  Asso- 
ciate Church  of  North  America. 

The  decisions  of  Church  judicatories  are  not  binding  any  farther  than  they 
are  agreeable  to  the  word  of  God  and  the  standards  of  the  church  as  founded 
on  the  word  of  God.  If  the  censure  is  unjust  they  do  not  effect  the  standing 
as  an  officer  of  the  person  censured.  In  fact,  unless  so  conforming  the  sen- 
tence is  void,  because  an  unjust  deposition  can  not  depose  an  officer  in  the 
sight  of  God.  The  ordination  vow,  as  set  up  in  the  bill  of  complaint,  filed  in 
this  cause,  is  not  correct,  as  it  does  not  state  it  in  full.  It  leaves  out  a  materi- 
al part,  as  follows  : — "  Remembring  that  while  they  act  uprightly,  they  judge 


184 

not  for  men  but  for  the  Lord,  who  is  also  with  tlicm  in  the  judgment."     If  that 
is  left  out  of  the    ordination   vow,  a  person  censured  could  never  justify  him- 
self for  resisting  an  unrighteous   sentence,  and  by  submitting  to  it,  would  act 
contrary  to  the  will  of  God.     A  submission  to  church  courts,  as  mentioned  in 
the    ordination  vow,   means  a  submission  in  the  Lord.     In   February,  in  the 
year  1837,  the    Kcv.  Archibald   White  was  a    meml)cr   of  the    Presbytery  of 
Cambridge.     I  do  not  recollect  being  present  at  any  meeting  of  the  Presbyte- 
ry of  Cambridge   in  February,  in  the  year  1837.     I  recollect  being  present  at 
a  meeting  of  the  Presbytery  of  Cambridge  in  the  month  of  November,  in  ihe 
year  1837.     All  the  ministerial  members  of  that  Presbytery  except  Mr.  Alex- 
ander Gordon  were  present.     I  was  a  member  of  that  Presbytery  at  that  time. 
I  was  legally  notified  by  the  moderator  of  that  Presbytery,  James  P.  Miller  of 
Argyle,  that  there  was  to  be  a  pro  re  nata  meeting.     I  attended  in  pursuance 
of  the  notice.     Previous  to  so  attending  I  received  a  letter  from  Mr.  Miller  re- 
questing me  to  go  against  Dr.  Bullions,  and  attempting  to  prejudice  me  against 
him.     There  were  present  at   the  meeting   Mr.  Miller,  David  Gordon,  Archi- 
bald White,  seniour,  Dr.  Bullions,  Mr.  Pringle,  Mr.  Stalker  and  myself.     Archi- 
bald White   was  on  that   occasion   deprived  of  his  seat  by  a   majority  of  the 
Presbytery.     In  the  first  place,  in  one  vote  Mr.  Pringle  and  myself  were  de- 
prived of  our  seats  by  the  casting  vote  of  the  moderator.     By  this  means  the 
minority  of  the  Presbytery  converted  themselves  into  the  majority.     The  rea- 
sons of  this  exclusion  were  affinity  to  Dr.  Bullions,  and  partiality  as  evinced 
by  attendance  upon    the    meetings  of  the   Presbytery    only,  when  Dr.   Bul- 
lions' case  was  to  be  tried.     There  was  no  investigation  of  these  charges.     If 
there  had  been  an  investigation  it  would  have  appeared,   that  on   account   of 
distance  from  the  usual  places  when  Presbytery  met  they  were  more  frequently 
absent  than  present  when  Dr.  Bullions  was  on   trial.     According  to   the   rules 
of  the  Church  Mr.  Pringle  and  myself  were  illegally  and  wrongfully  excluded 
from  the  court.     By  the  rules  of  the  church  when  a  challenge  is  interposed  to 
any  member  of  a  church  court,  the  court  are  bound  to  investigate  the  truth  of 
such  challenge  before    they  can  set  him  aside.     After  we  were  set  aside  the 
remainder  of  the  Presbytery  set  aside  Mr.  White.     The  alleged  grounds  of 
setting  him  aside   were,  partiality  to   Dr.  Bullions    in   attending  meetings  of 
Presbytery  only  when  he  was  to  be  tried.     The  charges  were  not  investigat- 
ed by  the  Presbstery.     Mr.  White  was  cast   out  by  the  casting  vote  of  the 
moderator.     "  Stuart  of  Perdivan"  is  a  standard  book  of  reference,  but  was 
never  legalized  as  a  standard  work  by  the  Synod.     Some  time  after  this  exclu- 
sion of  Mr.  Pringle  and  myself  I  received  a  letter  from  Mr.  Miller,  i:i  which 
he  attempts   still  farther  to  prejudice  me  against  Dr.  Bullions,  and  in  which  I 
consider  that  he  contradicts  his  decision  in  rejecting  me  from  the  Presbytery. 
I  am  still  as  I  consider  myself  a   member  of  the   Presbytery  of  Vermont;  as 
the  Synod  departed  from  the  rules  of  the  church  in  suspending  me,  and  their 
sentence  I  consider  therefore  null  and  void. 

The  offence  for  which  the  first  censure  was  passed  on  Dr.  Bullions,  was  for 
saying,  as  the  minutes  of  Presbytery  set  forth,  "  that  some  member  or  mem- 
bers present  were  not  fit  to  sit  in  any  court."  That  on  the  same  day,  as  the 
minutes  further  state.  Dr.  Bullions  designated  the  names  of  those  persons,  as 
follows:  Messrs.  A.  Gordon,  D.  Gordon,  Miller  and  Anderson  ;  this  meeting 
was  in  October,  in  the  year  1837. 

The  session  of  a  church  in  the  Associate  body,  have  no  right  to  interfere  with 
the  temporalities  of  a  church  with  regard  to  the  custody  of  the  church,  the  let- 
ting of  the  pews,  &c.  The  Presbytery  has  no  right  to  force  a  minister  upon  a 
congregation,  nor  has  Synod,  or  Presbytery  any   power  to  place  a  minister  in 


185 

the  pulpit  of  a  congregation,  contrary  to  the  will  of  the  people.  It  is  a  funda- 
mental principle,  that  the  people  must  give  the  call.  In  order  to  supply  the 
pulpit  temporarily  the  Session  with  the  consent  of  the  minister  may  invite 
other  ministers  in  good  standing,  to  officiate  in  the  church  without  the  consent 
of  the  Presbytery.  They  may  do  this  from  Sabbath  to  Sabbath.  In  order  to 
depose  a  minister,  there  must  be  three  citations  served  upon  him,  and  the  last 
one  must  be  with  a  certificate,  which  means  that  if  he  does  not  appear  the  court 
will  be  at  liberty  to  proceed.  This  certification  must  be  contained  in  the  cita- 
tion last  served.  Each  of  the  citations  must  have  ten  days  between  the  service 
and  the  return  day  if  they  proceed,  otherwise  their  proceedings  will  be  null 
and  void. 

Mr.  Allen  of  counsel  for  Defendants,  produces  a  book  entitled  on  the  cover 
"A  book  of  Church  Government  and  Discipline,  agreed  upon  and  enacted  by 
the  Associate  Synod  of  North  America,  at  Pittsburgh,  June  6th,  1817."  This 
book  is  hereto  annexed  and  marked  as  Exhibit  A  on  the  part  of  Defendants. — 
The  witness  states  that  said  book  was  at  the  time  of  the  deposition  of  Dr.  Bul- 
lions and  until  the  spring  of  1840  the  standard  book  of  discipline  of  the  As- 
sociate Church.  I  consider  that  the  purport  of  the  letter  I  received  from  Mr. 
Miller  was  to  prejudice  meagainstDr.  Bullions  and  in  favor  of  the  Presbytery; 
it  did  not  in  words  request  me  to  go  against  Dr.  Bullions,  but  such  was  its 
purport.  Mr.  Archibald  White  is  84  or  86  years  of  age,  and  has  been  since 
the  year  1788  a  member  of  the  Associate  Church.  He  has  always  maintain- 
ed a  high  standing  in  the  church  for  probity  and  piety,  and  particularly  noted 
for  his  great  knoAvledge  of  church  government  and  discipline.  The  cross- 
examination  above  is  objected  to  by  Mr.  Crary,  of  counsel  for  Complainants, 
so  far  as  it  contains  the  opinions  of  the  witness,  and  admits  parole  evidence  of 
letters  which  ought  to  be  produced,  and  also  that  the  same  is  irrelevant,  im- 
material and  not  within  the  issue  or  pleadings  in  this  cause. 

THOMAS  GOOD  WILLIE. 
Sworn,  examined  and   subscrib- 
ed this   12th  day   of  June,  in 
the  year  1841,  before  me, 

JAMES  GIBSON,  Examiner  in  Chancery. 


IN    CHANCERY, 
Before   the    Chancellor. 


William  Stevenson,  et  al. 

vs. 
Alexander  Bullions,  et  al. 


Thomas  Goodwillie,  a  witness  already  produced  on  the  part  of  the  Com- 
plainants, in  the  above  entitled  cause,  and  thereupon  examined  by  Mr.  Crary 
of  counsel  for  said  C'omplainants,  and  thereafter  cross-examined  by  Mr.  Allen 
of  counsel  for  said  Defendants,  being  now  re-examined  by  Mr.  Crary,  of  coun- 
sel as  aforesaid,  deposeth  on  his  said  re-examination  as  follows,  viz :  The 
Presbytery  of  Cambridge  and  Vermont,  till  the  year  1838  comprised  one  Pres- 
bytery called  the  Cambridge  Presbytery.  The  Synod  divided  the  Presbytery 
of  Cambridge,  and  erected  that  of  Vermont,  at  the  request  of  those  persons 
who  now  compose  the  Presbytery  of  Cambridge.  I  wish  to  be  distinctly  un- 
derstood that  neither  of  the  ministers  who  now  compose  the  Presbytery  of 
Vermont,  requested  that  change.  The  Synod,  as  appears  by  its  published 
24 


1S6 

minutes,  afTirmcd  the  decision  of  the  Presbytery  of  Cambridge,  relative  to  Dr. 
Bullions,  in  the  year  1S38.  The  minutes  stale  that  Dr.  Bullions,  was  referred 
back  to  the  Presbytery  of  Cambridge.  The  Presbytery  of  Vermont  were  af- 
teiwards  libelled  by  the  Synod,  lor  restoring  Dr.  Bullions,  and  unfairly  tried 
and  condemned  by  the  Synod,  against  which  act  said  Presbytery  hai>  protested 
before  the  Synod.  Synod  received  the  protest  in  the  spring  of  1841,  and  ap- 
pointed a  committee  to  answer  the  reasons  of  protest  in  May,  1842.  The  Sy- 
nod dissolved  the  Presbytery  by  commission,  the  Presbytery  claim  that  it  is 
still  a  lawful  Presbytery,  and  in  the  full  exercise  of  its  powers.  The  Rev, 
Ebenezer  Erskine  preached  tlie  Synodical  sermon  before  the  Synod  of  Perth 
and  Sterling.  In  this  sermon  Mr.  Erskine  condemned  the  abuses  in  the  Church 
of  Scotland,  at  that  time.  He  preached  upon  his  protest,  as  Dr.  Bullions  now 
does.  Upon  the  decision  of  the  Synod  in  tlie  case  of  Dr.  Bullions,  he  protest- 
ed against  the  decision.  At  the  meeting  of  the  Presbytery  in  November,  1837, 
after  Mr.  Pringle,  Mr.  White  and  myself  were  cast  out,  the  Presbytery  refused 
to  receive  Dr.  Bullion's  submission,  which  1  and  other  members  of  the  Presby- 
tery considered  amply  sufhcient  for  his  restoration.  The  only  affinity  between 
myself  and  jMr.  Bullions  was  that  I  was  a  former  brother-in-law  of  his,  and  Mr. 
Pringle  married  a  daughter  of  Dr.  Bullions.  Dr.  Bullion's  wife  had  .been  dead 
at  this  time  some  seven  or  eight  years,  and  he  had  married  a  second  wife,  who 
is  no  relation  of  mine.  In  the  libel  reported  to  Synod  by  the  Presbytery  of 
Cambridge  against  the  Presbytery  of  Vermont,  there  was  an  allusion  to  the 
affinity  of  the  witness  and  Mr.  Pringle  to  Dr.  Bullions,  but  in  adopting  the  li- 
bel the  Synod  struck  this  oat.  The  Associate  Church  is  governed  by  the  Pres- 
byterian form  of  Church  government,  which  consists  of  Church  courts  called 
Sessions,  Presbyteries  and  Synod.  Causes  may  be  carried  from  Session  to 
Presbytery,  and  from  Presbytery  to  Synod,  which  is  the  court  of  last  resort. 
The  members  of  the  session  and  the  ministers  promise  obedience  to  the  supe- 
rior court  in  the  Lord.  Mr.  Crary  asks  the  following  question:  Who  is  to  de- 
cide whether  the  obligations  are  observed,  except  it  be  Presbytery  or  Synod. 

Answer — When  the  Presbytery  and  Synod  decide  contrary  to  the  word  of 
God,  the  person  aggrieved  is  to  protest  against  it  and  resist  it  as  contrary  to 
the  will  of  God  and  the  standard  of  the  Church  as  founded  on  the  revealed 
will  of  God. 

Question  by  Mr.  Crary — After  a  person,  belonging  to  the  Associate  Church 
is  excommunicated  by  both  Presbytery  and  Synod,  is  he  still  a  member  in 
good  standing  ? 

Answer — He  is  still  a  member  of  the  Asseciate  Church,  if  the  Associate 
Church,  by  its  Judicatories,  departs  from  the  word  of  God  and  the  standards 
of  the  Church  in  excommunicating  him,  or  passing  any  other  vote  of  censure. 
Question  by  Mr.  Crary — Can  a  person  who  says  he  has  been  cruelly  and 
unjustly  treated  by  being  excommunicated,  still  be  a  member  of  the  Associate 
Church  in  full  communion  ? 

Answer — I  must  refer  to  the  answer  to  the  question  next  previous  to  this  as 
being  an  answer  to  the  last  one. 

Question  by  Mr.  Crary — Was  any  person  excluded  from  voting  on  Mr.  Bul- 
lions' case  at  the  meeting  when  he  was  suspended  ? 
Answer — I  was  not  at  that  meeting. 

Question — Was  any  person  excluded  from  voting  in  Dr.  Bullions'  case  at 
the  meeting  of  Presbytery  when  he  was  deposed  ? 

Answer— I  was  not  at  that  meeting,  but  I  suppose  that  the  members  who 
had  been  rejected  from  their  seats  in  the  former  meetings  for  the  same  rea- 
sons would  have  been  again  deprived  of  their  seats  in  his  case  for  the  same 
alleged  reasons. 


187 

Question — Was  there  any  censure  inflicted  on  Dr.  Bullions  at  the  meeting 
when  some  members  of  the  Presbytery  were  excluded  from  their  seats  ? 

Answer — I  do  not  recollect  that  there  was  any  new  censure. 

Question — Was  there  any  important  decisions  made  at  that  time,  in  the 
case  of  Dr.  Bullions,  relative  to  his  standing. 

Answer — The  refusal  to  receive  the  Doctor's  submission,  was  an  important 
decision,  which  took  place  at  that  time. 

Question — Was  such  a  decision  made  ? 

Answer — To  the  best  of  my  recollection,  he  offered  his  submission  and  the 
Presbytery  refused  to  receive  it,  which  I  considered  to  be  a  great  grievance, 
as  a  member  of  the  Presbytery. 

Question — What  confession  did  Dr.  Bullions  make  as  a  submission  at  that 
time  ? 

Answer — I  refer  you  to  the  minutes  of  the  Presbytery  of  Cambridge  on 
that  point. 

Question — Did  you  hear  Dr.  Bullions  at  that  meeting,  before  the  Presbyte- 
ry, confess  that  he  had  been  guilty  of  lying  and  slander? 

Answer — I  do  not  recollect  what  he  said  on  that  point,  in  particular. 

Question — Was  there  certain  requisitions  made  at  that  meeting,  as  the 
grounds  which  the  Presbytery  would  require  as  his  submission  ? 

Answer — I  believe  that  there  were  six. 

Question — Was  Dr.  Bullions  called  to  answer  more  than  one  at  that  meet- 
ing ? 

Answer — My  impression  is,  that  he  was. 

Question — Did  he  answer  to  more  than  one  ? 

Answer — I  think  he  did  answer  to  more  than  one. 

Question — How  many  of  those  requisitions  was  he  required  to  answer  at 
that  meeting  ? 

Answer — I  think  he  was  required  to  answer  them  all. 

Question — Did  he  answer  all  ? 

Answer — I  think  he  did. 

Question — What  did  Dr.  Bullions  answer  to  the  5th  requisition  ? 

Answer — I  do  not  recollect  particularly  what  he  said,  but  I  have  this  gener- 
al impression,  that  he  retracted  what  he  had  said  against  the  Presbytery.  I, 
think  he  withdrew  what  he  said,  and  I  think  the  Presbytery  ought  to  have 
been  satisfied  with  that  withdrawal. 

THOMAS  GOODWILLIE. 

Sworn,  examined,  and  subscrib-  ) 
ed  this  12rh  day  of  June,  in  > 
the  year  1841,  before  me,  ) 

JAMES  GIBSON,  Examiner  in  Chancery. 


IN   CHANCERY. 

Before    the    Chancellor 


William  Stevenson,  et  al.  Compl'ts. 

vs. 
Alexander  Bullions,  et  al.  Def'ts. 


Thomas  Goodwnllie,  a  witness  already  produced  on  the  part  of  the  Com- 
plainants, in  the  above  entitled  cause,  and  thereupon  examined  by  Mr.  Crary 
of  counsel  for  said  Complainants,  then  cross-examined  by  Mr.  Allen  of  coun- 


183 

sel  for  said  Defendants,  and  then  reexamined  by  Mr.  Crary  of  counsel  for 
Complainants,  being  again  cross-examined  by  Mr.  Allen  of  counsel  as  afore- 
said, deposeth  as  follows,  viz  : 

Dr.  Bullions  protested  against  the  decision  of  Synod  on  the  appeal,  as  did 
also  several  other  members  of  the  Synod,  as  will  appear  by  reference  to  page 
twenty  and  twenty-one  of  Exhibit  A,  on  the  part  of  Complainants.  The  rca« 
sons  set  up  in  this  protest,  are  in  conformity  to  the  rules  and  practice  of  the 
Church  Discipline.  We  entered  a  memorial  and  complaint,  relative  to  our 
being  deprived  of  our  seats  by  the  Presbytery  of  Cambridge  to  the  Synod,  in 
which  we  say,  that  we  hold  the  acts  of  the  Presbytery  in  rejecting  us  as  un- 
constitutional and  unprecedented,  and  that  we  hold  all  such  acts  of  Presbyte- 
ry, passed  during  our  exclusion  and  all  such  acts  as  depend  on  them,  as  null 
and  void  from  the  beginning.  This  memorial  lies  on  the  table  of  Synod,  un- 
touched to  this  day.  They  were  void  according  to  rules  of  practice  of  the  As- 
sociate Church.  At  the  meeting  of  the  Cambridge  Presbytery,  in  October, 
1S37,  Dr.  Bullions  had  been  suspended  from  the  ministry,  and  his  object  in 
hciving  the  meeting  in  November,  1837,  was  to  get  himself  restored.  This 
was  the  object  of  Dr.  Bullions,  as  I  understood  it. 

THOMAS  GOODWILLIE. 
Sworn,  examined  and   subscrib- 
ed,  this  12th  day  of   June,  in 
the  year  1841,  before  me, 

JAMES  GIBSON,  Examiner  in  Chancery. 


I>EFEWI>A]^^T85    EVII>E."^^€E» 


IN    CHANCERY, 
Before   the   Chancellor 


William  Stevenson,  ct  al,      ) 

vs.  >  Andrew  Stark's  Deposition. 

Alexander  Bullions,  et  al.    ) 

Deposition  of  the  Eeverend  Andrew  Stark,  a  witness  produced  on  the  part 
of  the  Defendants,  and  sworn  and  exanined  in  a  certain  cause  now  pending 
in  the  Court  of  Chancery  of  the  State  of  New-York,  before  the  Chancellor  of 
said  Stfite,  Avherein  William  Stevenson,  William  McGeoch,  Edward  Small, 
John  McArthur,  James  McArthur,  Robert  McArthur,  Peter  McArthur,  George 
Small,  James  Arnot,  John  Arnot,  Edward  Cook,  John  Robertson,  Thomas 
McMorris,  James  Hoy,  John  McDoual,  Isaac  Ashton,  John  Foster  and  William 
Livingston,  members  of  the  church  in  full  communion,  known  as  the  Associ- 
ate Congregation  of  Cambridge,  of  the  county  of  Washington  and  State  of 
New-York,  adhering  to  the  principles  of  the  Associate  Presbytery  of  Pennsyl- 
vania, formerly,  now  the  Associate  Synod  of  North  America,  are  Complain- 
ants, and  Alexander  Bullions,  James  Shiland,  Robert  McClelland,  Peter  Hill, 
Trustees  of  the  Associate  Congregation  of  Cambridge  of  the  County  of  Wash- 
ington, adhering  to  the  principles  of  the  Associate  Presbytery  of  Pennsylvania, 
formerly,  now  the  Associate  Synod  of  North  America,  are  Defendants,  on  the 
part  of  said  Defendants,  before  James  Gibson,  one  of  the  Examiners  in  Chan- 
cery, in  and  for  the  County  of  Washington,  in  the  State  of  New-York,  at  Union 
Hall,  in  the  village  of  Salem,  in  said  County  of  Washington,  commencing  on 
the  fourteenth  day  of  September,  in  the  year  of  our  Lord  one  thousand  eight 
hundred  and  forty  two,  and  proceeding  de  die  in  diem,  deposeth  as  follows,  viz.  : 

I  reside  in  the  city  of  New-York,  am  49  years  of  age  and  am  a  clergyman 
of  the  Associate  Church.  I  have  been  a  minister  of  that  Church  a  little  over 
twenty  years.  I  was  a  minister  of  the  Associate  Church  in  Durham,  England, 
and  came  to  this  country  in  1S20.  I  am  a  pastor  now  in  the  Associate  Presby- 
terian Church,  Grand  Street,  New- York  city.  I  am,  to  some  extent,  acquaint- 
ed with  the  rules  of  discipline,  faith  and  practice  of  the  Associate  Church. 
In  order  to  pass  a  censure  of  any  kind  upon  an  individual  member  of  that 
church,  he  must  have  committed  a  scandalous  offence.  The  course  of  procee- 
dure  in  such  case  is  particularly  pointed  out  in  the  Book  of  Discipline.  See 
page  44th  of  the  book  of  Discipline  and  pages  following.  In  the  first  place  if 
the  proceedure  is  by  libel  a  copy  of  it  must  be  delivered  to  the  person  accused 
with  the  names  of  the  witnesses  attached,  which  are  the  only  witnesses  that 
can  be  examined  in  the  case.  The  charge  must  be  proved  by  admission  or  in 
general  by  the  oath  of  two  witnesses  at  least.  I  may  have  seen  some  parts  of 
the  account  of  the  Presbytery  of  Cambridge  of  the  trial  of  Dr.  Bullions,  and 
have  heard  them  all  read  in  Synod.  I  refer  to  his  trial  before  that  Presbytery 
commencing  in  October,  1837.     The  charge  brought  against  Dr.  Bullions  was 


190 

his  having  as  tliey  said  made  an  insinuation;  tliese  are  the  words.  "  They  say 
he  insinuated  that  sonie  member  or  members  present  were  unfit  to  sit  in  any 
court." 

Question  by  Mr.  Allen — AVds  the  charge  made  against  him  at  that  time, 
viz :  the  fifth  day  of  October,  1837,  in  the  Presbytery  of  Cambridge,  proved 
either  by  witnesses,  or  by  his  own  admission,  according  to  Presbytery's  own 
account  in  their  minutes,  agreeable  to  the  rules  of  discipline  and  practice  of 
the  Associate  Church.  Mr.  Oary,  of  counsel  for  Complainants,  objects  to  this 
question,  on  the  grounds  of  immaterialit}-,  irrelevancy,  and  that  it  is  calling 
for  the  opinion  of  the  witness  against  the  decision  of  the  Presbytery.  Which 
objection  is  over-ruled  by  the  examiner  and  the  evidence  is  received. 

Answer — There  Avas  no  proof  offered  or  called  for,  and  Dr.  Bullions  denied 
he  had  used  the  words  imputed  to  him — Presbytery.'s  own  narrative  is  proof 
of  this.      See  pages  11th  and  12th. 

Question  by  Mr.  Allen — Did  the  Presbytery  then  in  this  instance  actually 
proceed  to  censure  Dr.  Bullions,  without  having  first  ascertained  the  offence 
which  they  alleged  he  had  committed,  and  had  charged  against  him  ?  Mr, 
Crary,  of  counsel  for  Complainants,  objects  to  the  question  on  the  grounds 
that  the  witness  says  he  was  not  present  at  the  meeting  of  Presbytery  at  which 
the  facts  took  place.  That  it  is  not  the  best  evidence  of  those  facts.  Which 
objection  is  over-ruled  by  the  examiner  and  the  answer  taken  down. 

Answer — The  Presbytery  resolved  to  rebuke  him  without  having  first  as- 
certained the  offence  which  they  alleged  he  had  committed,  and  which  they 
had  charged  against  him. 

Question  by  Mr.  Allen — Did  the  Presbytery  in  thus  passing  censure  of  re- 
buke, act  agreeably  to  the  rules  of  discipline  of  the  Associate  Church?  Mr. 
Crary,  of  counsel  for  Complainants,  objects  to  this  question  on  the  ground  that 
it  is  calling  for  the  opinion  of  the  witness  against  the  decision  of  Presbytery. 
Which  objection  is  over-ruled  by  the  examiner  and  the  answer  taken  down. 

Answer — The  Presbytery  in  thus  passing  censure  of  rebuke,  did  not  act 
agreeable  to  the  rules  of  discipline  of  the  Associate  Church.  For  authority 
as  to  this  answer,  see  book  of  discipline, page  55th,  and  section  second,  title  "of 
rebuke."  Dr.  Bullions  had  a  right,  according  to  the  rules  and  discipline  of  the 
Associate  Church,  to  protest  and  appeal  from  the  censure  of  rebuke.  The  ef- 
fect of  this  protest  and  appeal,  if  admitted  by  the  Presbytery,  was.  to  stay  all 
proceedings;  in  case  they  refused  to  admit,  he  then  had  a  right  to  protest  and 
appeal  against  the  rejection  of  his  first  protest  and  appeal.  The  effect  of  this 
last  protest  and  appeal  would  be  to  suspend  proceed  are  and  carry  up  the 
whole  case  to  Synod  for  review  and  decision.  See  the  61sl  page  of  the  book 
of  discipline.  After  the  admission  of  the  second  protest  and  appeal,  that  stop- 
ped all  proceedure  in  the  Presbytery,  and  carried  the  whole  case  up  to  Synod 
for  review.  Presbytery  had  no  right  then  to  proceed,  for  if  they  had  a  right 
to  proceed  it  would  nullify  the  right  of  protest  and  appeal,  for  it  would  be 
needless  to  appeal  from  the  sentence  after  the  accused  hud  suffered  the  penal- 
ty. I  speak  from  my  knowledge  of  the  practice  of  the  Church,  and  I  never 
knew  it  deviated  from,  except  in  this  instance.  The  Presbytery  had  no  right 
to  suspend  Dr.  Bullions  at  that  time,  for  he  was  only  in  the  exercise  of  a  con- 
stitutional right. 

Mr.  Crary  objects  to  the  whole  of  this  last  answet  as  being  merely  the  opin- 
ion of  the  witness  against  the  decision  of  the  Presbytery--     ,     •     • 

The  term  ''contumacy,"  always,  I  suppose,  means  resistance  to  lawful  au- 
thority, but  to  protest  and  appeal  against  a  decision  of  a  Church  court  is  not 
eontumacious,  because  it  is  only  the  exercise    of  a  lawful    right.     It  was  not 


191 

contumacious  in  Dr.  Bullions  to  refuse  to  submit  to  the  censure  of  rebuke  after 
he  had  protested  and  appealed,  but  it  would  have  been  contumacy  for  him  to 
have  resisted  if  he  had  not  protested  and  appealed,  as  his  resistance  would 
then  have  been  without  lawful  cause. 

Mr.  Crary  objects  to  so  much  of  this  answer  as  gives  the  opinion  of  the 
witness  against  the  decision  of  the  Presbytery. 

Ciuestion  by  Mr.  Allen. — Is  rebuke  a  proper  Church  censure  ? 

Answer. — it  is  ;  see  page  55th  of  the  book  of  discipline,  section  second, 
I  know  of  no  other  way  that  Dr.  Bullions  could  have  availed  himself  of  his 
constitutional  right  to  protest  and  appeal,  than  by  refusing  to  submit  to  the 
censure  of  rebuke.  If  he  had  submitted  it  would  have  been  abandoning  his 
protest  and  appeal. 

Question  by  Mr.  Allen. — Are  there  any  cases  in  which  a  Presbytery  or  in- 
ferior court  may  proceed  after  protest  and  appeal  to  a  higher  court,  and  if  so, 
state  the  cases  and  to  what  length  the  court  may  proceed,  according  to  the 
discipline  of  the  Associate  Church  ? 

Answer.  — It  depends  altogether  upon  the  sentence  protested  against;  provi- 
ded the  protest  and  appeal  be  taken  against  any  interlocutory  sentence,  which 
means  a  sentence  not  resulting  in  any  censure,  the  court  may  in  that  case  pro- 
ceed with  the  trial,  but  if  the  protest  be  taken  against  a  final  sentence,  issuing 
in  censure,  the  court  may  not  proceed.  And  this  is  the  case  as  well  where 
the  first  protest  and  appeal  is  rejected,  and  there  is  a  protest  and  appeal  against 
the  rejection  of  the  first,  as  where  the  first  is  admitted.  The  protest  and  ap- 
peal of  Dr.  Bullions  against  the  sentence  of  rebuke,  was  against  a  final  sen- 
tence. A  Presbytery  have  in  no  case  a  right  to  proceed  to  the  execu  ion  of 
the  final  sentence,  after  two  protests  and  appeals.  The  second  protest  and  ap- 
peal can  never  be  rejected  according  to  the  usages  of  the  Church. 

Question  by  Mr.  Allen. — Did  the  Presbytery  of  Cambridge,  after  admitting 
the  second  protest  and  appeal  of  Dr.  Bullions,  act  agreeably  to  the  rules  and 
discipline  of  the  Associate  Church  in  suspending  him  ?  Mr.  Crary,  of  counsel 
for  Complainants,  objects  to  this  question  on  the  ground  that  it  is  calling  for 
the  opinion  of  the  witness  against  the  decision  of  the  Presbytery.  The  exam- 
iner over-rules  the  objection,  and  the  answer  is  taken  down  as  follows  : — 

Answer. — The  Presbytery  did  not  act  in  accordance  with  those  rules,  be- 
cause they  suspended  him  for  merely  protesting  against  their  decision  to  re- 
buke him,  which  was  his  only  constitutional  remedy  prescribed  in  the  book  of 
discipline;  see  book  of  discipline,  page  61.  It  is  certainly  not  according  to 
the  rules  of  the  Associate  Church  to  exclude  a  member  of  a  Church  court, 
from  a  seat  in  court,  unless  upon  charges  preferred  and  proved  against  him. 

Question  by  Mr.  Allen. — Was  it  according  to  the  discipline  of  the  Associate 
Church  for  the  Presbytery  of  Cambridge  to  exclude  fi'om  their  seats,  on  the 
case  of  Dr.  Bullions,  at  the  pro  re  nata  meeting  of  November,  1837,  the  Rev. 
Messrs.  Goodwiliie  and  Pringle? 

Answer — Certainly  not.  It  was  contrary  to  all  their  rules.and  usages  so  to 
do.  It  was  contrary  to  the  practice  of  this  very  Presbytery,  because  in  all 
other  cases  when  Dr.  Bullions  was  on  trial,  and  they  were  present,  the  Presby- 
tery allowed  those  persons  to  sit  as  members.  There  was  another  peculiarity 
about  the  proceedure.  It  was  contrary  to  all  rule  and  usage  to  include  the 
two  in  one  resolution,  as  that  prevented  either  from  voting  on  its  passage,  and 
besides  it  was  necessary  to  investigate  the  case  and  the  charges  made  against 
the  members,  before  they  could  be  excluded.  Those  members  were  certainly 
illegally  excluded  on  that  occasion  from  their  seats  as  members  of  that  court. 
The  Rev.  Archibald  While,   Sen'r.  was  also  illegally  excluded  from  a  seat  in 


192 

that  Presbytery  at  that  time.  He  Avas  the  father  of  the  Church,  and  by  far 
the  oldest  member  of  Presbytery  and  Synod.  I  never  heard  an  individual 
breathe  a  sentiment  against  him  for  the  purity  of  his  morals  and  the  integrity 
of  his  character.  It  certainly  is  not  legal  for  a  member  who  is  interested  in 
the  judgment  to  participate  and  vote  as  a  member  of  the  court.  It  is  in  effect 
a  man's  sitting  on  the  trial  of  his  own  case  and  giving  judgment  thereon.  It 
was  not  right,  nor  according  to  the  discipline  of  the  Associate  Church  for 
Messrs.  Anderson,  A.  and  D.  Gordon,  or  Miller,  to  sit  on  the  trial  of  Dr.  Bul- 
lions, at  the  time  he  was  suspended  and  deposed. 

A  declinature  is  a  refusal  to  submit  to  the  authority  of  the  court.  It  is  war- 
rantable or  unwarrantable  according  to  the  reasons  on  which  it  is  founded.  It 
may  be  said  to  be  warrantable  when  a  Judicatory  is  declined  as  having  com- 
mitted injustice  in  any  interlocutory  decision,  or  against  particular  persons, 
members,  who  are  declined  as  having  acted  as  parties  in  the  cause.  Perdivan, 
book  4th,  title  5th,  section  9th.  The  declinature  of  Dr.  Bullions  was  in  my 
opinion  warrantable,  and  the  only  safe  course  it  appears  to  me,  he  could  pursue  ; 
and  if  he  had  continued  in  the  court,  it  would  in  my  opinion  have  been  sanc- 
tioning a  course  of  iniquity.  By  cutting  off  those  members  there  was  no  min- 
isterial member  of  Presbytery  left,  except  such  as  were  implicated  or  interest- 
ed against  him.  The  declinature  of  Dr.  Bullions  being  lawful  the  Presbytery, 
if  they  had  proceeded  according  to  the  rules  of  the  church,  should  have  stayed 
all  proceedure  on  his  case  till  the  next  meeting  of  Synod.  The  declinature 
should  have  the  same  effect  as  a  strong  protest  and  appeal. 

Question  by  Mr.  Allen — Were  the  acts  and  doings  of  the  Presbytery  of  Cam- 
bridge, after  Dr.  Bullions'  protest  and  appeal,  and  after  the  exclusion  of  the 
members  as  before  mentioned  and  after  his  declinature,  according  to  the  rules 
and  discipline  of  the  Associate  Church,  valid  or  binding  upon  Dr.  Bullions  ? 

Answer — They  were  not  valid  or  binding,  and  Dr.  Bullions  was  bound  by 
his  religious  principles  to  resist  them.  He  was  bound  by  scripture  to  resist. 
See  declaration  and  testimony,  page  12oth.  He  was  to  look  to  the  word  of 
God,  and  if  the  decision  was  not  consistent  with  that  he  must  resist.  A  pro  re 
ticta  meeting  is  called  in  this  way: — It  is  called  by  the  moderator,  at  the  request 
of  two  members  of  Presbytery,  by  his  addressing  a  letter  or  notice  to  each  min- 
isterial member  ten  days  previous  to  th.e  time  appointed.  At  a  pro  re  nata  meet- 
ing, no  business  can  be  done  except  that  mentioned  in  the  notice. 

Question  by  Mr.  Allen — Was  the  Reverend  Duncan  Stalker,  legally  exclu- 
ded from  his  seat  in  Presbytery,  at  the  meeting  in  December,  1837,  in  the  case 
of  Dr.  Bullions  ? 

Answer — I  should  think  he  was  not  legally  excluded  from  his  seat  on  that 
occasion.  It  was  not  legal  or  according  to  the  discipline  of  the  Associate  Church, 
to  depose  Dr.  Bullions  in  his  absence  in  the  manner  they  did,  if  his  declina- 
ture was  warrantable,  which  I  think  it  was  in  this  case.  So  far  as  I  am  in- 
formed it  is  not  the  usage  or  practice  of  the  Associate  Church  to  depose  aper- 
son  in  his  absence.     My  information  is  not  however  very  extensive. 

I  would  cite  as  authority  for  this  the  case  of  Moncrief  and  the  Presbytery  of 
Zetland  mentioned  particularly  in  "  Hill  of  Dially's  practice  of  the  judicatories 
)f  the  church  of  Scotland,"  page  54th.  Previous  to  proceeding  to  trial  of  an 
ccused  person,  he  must  have  three  citations  according  to  the  usage  and  prac- 
lice  of  the  Associate  Church,  This  is  the  uniform  practice  and  I  have  never 
known  it  departed  from  except  in  the  instance  of  Dr.  Bullions,  or  about  that 
time.  See  Book  of  Discipline  page  46th — ten  days  is  the  regular  time  which 
must  elapse  between  the  service  and  return  of  each  citation,  unless  he  is  cited, 
apud  acta,  being  present  in  court,  by  the  moderator.     I  know  of  no  cases  where 


193 

citation  may  lawfully  or  legally  be  omitted.     Where  a  member  sends  a  mes- 
sage contemptuously  declining  the  authority  of  the  court,  he  might  be  proceed- 
ed against  for  that  offence,  but  it  would  not  dispense  with  the  necessity  of  the 
usual  number  of  citations.     I  was  present  at  the  meeting  of  the  Associate  Sy- 
nod of  North  America,  in  May,  1838,  when  it  met  at  Philadelphia.     I  was  pres- 
ent during  nearly  the  whole  session,  till  within  a  day  or  two  of  its  close.     On 
the  affirraance  by  Synod  of  the  decision  of  the  Presbytery  of  Cambridge  in  the 
case  of  Dr.  Bullions,  he  protested  against  the  decision  of  Synod  and   contin- 
ued to  exercise  his  ministry  under  his  protest  as  other  protestants  have  done 
since  the  Reformation  in  the  16th  century.     It  has  also  been  the  practice  of  the 
seceders  and  on  that  is  founded  the  whole  secession  church.     The  seceders 
considered  it  an  honor  thus  to  vindicate  the  word  of  God.     I  refer  to  page  25th 
of  the  narrative  of  the  rise  of  the  church.     This  is  a  book  which  cannot  be 
denied  as  authority  in  the  Associate  Church.     The  principles  of  the  church 
obliged  Dr.  Bullions  to  continue  to  preach  under  his  protest  in  case  the  decis- 
ion was  contrary  to  scripture.     The  Synod  departed  from  all  the  usages  and 
practice  of  the  Associate  Church,  in  their  decision  on  the  case  of  Dr.  Bullions, 
and  had  I  not  seen  it  actually  done  I  could  not  have  believed  it.    The  Synod  vir- 
tually abrogated,  or  set  aside,  the  right  of  protest  and  appeal  from  an  inferior 
to  a  superior  church  judicatory — which  I  consider  one  of  the  most  important 
parts  of  Presbyterial  church  government.     The  alleged  off'ence  for  which  Dr. 
Bullions  was  first  suspended  and  afterwards  deposed,  was  protesting  against 
Presbytery's  decision  to  rebuke  him,  which  was  his  undoubted  right,  that  is  he 
had  an  undoubted  right  to  protest  and  appeal.     See  book  of  Discipline  page 
sixty-one.     But  by  this  decision  it  is  made  a  crime  worthy  of  deposition   to 
protest  against  the  decision  of  Presbytery  and  appeal  to  Synod,  for  this  is  the 
only  offence  for  which,  the  Presbytery  say  in  their  minutes  they  suspended  him, 
also  by  sanctioning  the  conduct  of  the  Presbytery  in  excluding  three  members 
from  their  seats  without  any  just  cause  shown,  the  Synod  has  to  a  great  extent 
destroyed  the  former  discipline  of  the  church. 

The  decisions  of  church  courts  according  to  the  principles  of  the  Associate 
Church  are  not  binding  when  they  are  erroneous  and  not  according  to  the  word 
of  God.     An  unjust  sentence  of  a  church  court  or  one  contrary  to  the  word  of 
God  and  the  discipline  of  the  church  does  not  dissolve  the  pastoral  relation. 
So  far  as  I  can  understand,  the  decisions  of  the  church  courts  in  the  case  of  Dr. 
Bullions,  are  not  sanctioned  by  the  word  of  God  or  the  subordinate  standards 
of  the  church.     For  authorities  on  this  subject  I  would  cite  Book  of  Discipline 
page  55th,  also  page  54th.     Acts   of  the   Apostles,  chapter   25th,  verse  11th. 
Deuteronomj^  19th  chapter,  15th  verse.  The  duty  of  a  minister  when  thus  un- 
justly deposed   is  to   continue  in  the  communion   of  the    church   protesting 
against  the  decision.     See  the  narrative  page  24th,  and  the  Declaration  and  tes- 
timony page  108th,  and  109th.     It  is  the  duty  of  a  minister  thus  unjustly  cen- 
*  sured  to  refuse  submission  to  the  highest  judicatory  of  the  church  and  remain 
in  it  until  forcibly  cast  out.     It  is  his  duty  to  remain  in  a  state  of  communion  as 
long  as  he  possibly  can.     See  narrative,  page  24th.     Such  an  unjust  deposition 
does  not  destroy  the  standing  of  a  minister  with  the  church.     On  the  con- 
trary the  fathers  of  the  secession  church,  Mr.  Erskine  and  others,  were  account- 
ed worthy  of  honor  on  that  very  account.     The  adherence  by  a  congregation 
to  a  minister  thus  deposed  is  not  a  renunciation  of  the  authority  of  Church 
courts  or  Presbyterian  Church  government,  it  is  only  a  resistance  to  anti-Pres- 
byterianism.     It  was  so  declared   by   the  founders  of  the  secession  church. 
This  is  mentioned  in  Gib's  Display.     It  is  declared  as  the  only  way  to  preserve 
the  law  of  the  Lord's  house.     According  to  the  principles  of  the  Associate 
25 


194 

Church  those  only  arc  entitled  to  vote  for  spiritual  officers  who  are  members  of 
the  church  in  full  communion,  but  for  temporal  ofiicers,  all  members  vote  who 
are  pew  holders  or  contribute  towards  the  temporalities  of  the  church  whether 
members  in  full  communion  or  not.  Accord ini^  to  the  principles  of  the  Asso- 
ciate Church  neither  the  Synod  nor  Presbytery  have  power  or  right  to  send  a 
minister  to  preach  to  a  congregation  without  their  consent  and  without  a  call 
from  the  congregation.  The  call  of  the  people  is  the  foundation  of  the  right  to 
preach. 

Mr.  Crarv  of  counsel  for  Complainants,  objects  to  the  last  answer  as  not 
relevant  to  this  case. 

Question  by  Mr.  Allen — Had  the  Synod  the  right  or  power  to  send  Messrs. 
McGill  and  McKic  to  preach  in  the  church  of  the  Associate  Congregation  of 
Cambridge,  at  the  time  they  did,  against  the  will  and  wishes  of  the  Congre- 
gation? 

Answer — They  have  no  such  authority,  according  to  scripture  or  the 
standards  of  the  Church,  to  do  so  against  the  will  and  wishes  of  the  congre- 
gation. Vacancies  in  the  Associate  (.  hurch  are  supplied  by  Presbj-tery  on  the 
call  of  the  congregation ;  and  the  congregation  are  not  bound  to  receive  a  min- 
ister, unless  duly  called  by  them.  The  government  of  the  congregation  is 
committed  to  the  Church  Session.  Book  of  Discipline,  page  7th.  The  Pres- 
bytery have  no  original  jurisdiction  over  a  congregation.  They  can  proceed 
only  on  complaint  or  appeal,  in  the  aflairs  of  the  congregation.  In  all  cases 
ao-ainst  ministers.  Presbytery  has  original  jurisdiction;  for  authority,  see  Book 
of  Discipline,  page  23rd.  The  duty  of  deacons  is  to  attend  to  the  poor  and 
their  concerns.  Book  of  Discipline,  page  5th,  and  declaration  and  testimony 
pao-es  12oth,  and  142nd.  The  congregation  acting  by  their  trustees,  have 
the  control  of  the  lands  and  temporalities  of  the  Church.  The  minister,  el- 
ders or  deacons  have  no  control,  as  such  of  the  temporalities  of  the  Church — 
I  speak  of  this  State  — elders  and  deacons  have  sometimes  been  elected  trus- 
tees and  in  such  case,  they  would  as  such  control  the  temporalities.  There 
was  a  bill  introduced  into  the  Legislature  of  this  State,  to  give  the  minister, 
elders  and  deacons  of  the  Associate  Church,  perpetual  control  as  trustees,  but 
it  did  not  pass.  There  are  some  churches,  where  the  practice  has  been  other- 
wise, than  as  I  have  stated,  but  I  believe  I  have  stated  what  the  rule  of  the 
Church  on  this  subject  is.  The  trustees  have  the  entire  control  of  the  church 
and  may  close  the  doors  against  a  minister  sent  by  Synod  to  preach  to  the  con- 
gregation.    They  are  subject  only  to  the  direction  of  the  congregation. 

The  Presbytery  has  not  the  right  in  the  first  instance  to  declare  who  are,  or 
who  are  not  elders  or  members  of  the  Church.  The  Church  Session  act  on 
this  subject  and  it  can  only  go  before  Presbytery,  by  appeal  from  the  de- 
cision of  the  Session.  The  Presbytery  have  no  power  to  proceed,  without  char- 
ges and  proof,  and  declare  who  is  a  member  or  elder  of  the  Church.  Mr. 
Crary  of  counsel  for  Complainants,  objects  to  this  last  answer  on  the  ground 
that  the  testimony  is  irrelevant  to  this  case. 

Church  courts  are  not  infallible; — they  are  liable  to  err.  See  authority  for 
this?,  confession  of  faith,  chapter  31st,  section  4th;  declaration  and  testimony, 
page  126th.  They  are  entitled  to  obedience,  only  so  far  as  they  agree  with 
the  v\rord  of  God.  See  confession  of  faith,  chapter  31st,  section  3rd  and  4th  ; 
declaration  and  testimony,  page  126th.  I  have  known  the  Associate  Synod  of 
North  America  make  a  decision  one  year  and  reverse  it  the  next,  and  then  re- 
verse the  latter  decision  the  succeeding  year.  Messrs,  Anderson,  Gordon, 
Miller  and  others,  on  page  33  of  Exhibit  B,  on  part  of  Complainants,  accuse 
the  Synod  of  North  America  of  asserting  an  untruth ;  secondly,  of  misrepre- 


195 

sentation ;  of  violation  of  the  acknowledged  rules  of  discipline  ;  guilty  of  a 
breach  of  public  faith,  and  many  other  things  as  bad  as  that. 

The  power  of  the  Church  courts  is  altogether  spiritual ;  nothing  more  is 
claimed  for  them.  See  declaration  and  testimony,  pages  6Sth,  and  115th  and 
116th.  They  do  not  pretend  to  decide  on  questions  of  property.  The  origin- 
al Seceders  retained  their  churches  for  many  years,  and  if  they  had  not  volun- 
tarily given  them  up,  would  have  continued  to  hold  them. 

There  is  a  law  in  Scotland,  that  no  civil  officer  shall  execute  the  process  of 
an  ecclesiastical  court.  This  was  by  an  act  passed  in  the  reign  of  Queen 
Anne.  See  SmoUet's  history  of  England,  Philadelphia  edition,  page  465th 
of  the  first  volume.  The  Eeverend  Messrs.  Marshall  and  Clarkson,  the  faLhers 
of  the  Associate  Synod  of  North  America,  were  deposed  by  the  Associate  Re- 
formed Synod,  or  by  subordinate  authorities  of  that  Synod.  See  page  43  of 
the  narrative.  Mr.  Marshall  had  a  majority  of  his  Congregation  against  him, 
and  he  was  ejected  with  the  minority.  Mr.  Clarkson  had  a  large  majority  of 
his  church  in  his  favor,  and  he  and  the  majority  retained  the  possession  of  the 
church.  The  elders  that  were  opposed  to  Mr.  Marshall  in  his  Congregation 
were  deposed,  and  the  trustees  and  others  in  the  majority  were  excommuni- 
cated, but  this  did  not  prevent  their  retaining  possession  of  the  church  in  ques- 
tion. See  McCullock's  life  of  Marshall,  pages  27th,  30th  and  31st.  It  is  al- 
so stated  in  the  narrative.  So  far  as  my  knowledge  extends  the  church  has 
always  been  given  to  a  majority  of  the  Congregation  when  it  could  not  be 
clearly  proved  that  the  majority  had  departed  from  the  standards  of  the  church. 
This  was  so  decided  in  the  English  House  of  Lords  in  1815,  in  the  cause  of 
Craigdallie  and  others  vs  Aikman  and  others. 

There  is  no  change,  so  far  as  I  know,  in  the  religion  of  Dr.  Bullions  or  that 
of  his  Congregation.  He  preaches  the  same  gospel  he  ever  did  to  the  best  of 
my  knowledge.  The  Synod  of  North  America,  however,  has  altered  some 
since  the  time  of  my  first  acquaintance  with  it.  I  dont  mean  that  they  have 
altered  their  printed  books,  not  materially,  but  I  refer  to  their  way  of  proceed- 
ing aginst  persons  accused  of  any  thing.  It  was  formerly  customary  to  bring 
up  witnesses  and  only  examine  those  named  in  the  libel.  Of  late  years,  I 
have  known  cases  of  individuals  accused  and  found  guilty  without  proof  or  ev- 
idence. This  I  consider  a  fatal  departure  from  their  rules  and  discipline.  They 
have  also,  as  I  before  stated,  abrogated  the  power  of  protest  and  appeal. 

The  Synod  has  no  power  to  prescribe  any  regulations,  departing  from  the 
word  of  God  or  the  standards  of  the  Church.  Its  power  is  wholly  ministerial. 
It  has  no  legislative  powers  whatever.  Book  of  discipline,  page  4th.  Declar- 
ation and  testimony,  126.  The  eflect  of  a  Synod  having  the  power  to  decide 
upon  the  temporalities  of  a  Church,  would  be  fatal  to  the  Church.  The  Sy- 
nod would  in  the  end  have  the  control  of  the  entire  temporalities  of  the  Church. 
It  was  so  in  the  olden  time  and  might  be  so  again. 

Mr.  Crary  of  counsel  for  Complainants,  objects  to  this  last  answer  as  not  in 
any  way  relevant  to  the  case. 

In  general,  thepowerof  a  Synod  is  to  admitand  judge  of  appeals  brought  be- 
fore it  from  Presbyteries.  See  book  of  discipline,  pages  12th  and  13th.  It  has 
no  power  to  censure  aPresbytery,  unless  the  case  is  brought  before  it  as  prescri- 
bed by  the  rules,  and  a  relevant  charge  proved  against  it.  The  proper  way  to 
bring  up  the  case  of  a  Presbytery  is  by  complaint  against  it  or  by  appeal  from 
its  decision.  On  a  complaint  against  a  Presbytery,  it  could  not  be  tried  by  the 
rules,  until  the  Presbytery  had  been  duly  cited  and  the  charge  against  it  pro- 
ved or  admitted.  See  book  of  discipline,  pages  47th  and  59.  I  was  pre- 
sent at  the  meeting  of  the  Associate  Synod  of  North  America  in  the  springs 


19G 

of  1S39,  at  Pittsburgh.  It  appears  by  the  minutes  of  Synod  of  tliat  year,  on 
page  5th  that  John  Robertson  was  assumed  as  a  member  of  Synod  ;  the  mean- 
ing of  the  word  assumed  is  one  who  is  called  by  the  Synod  to  a  scat  in  the 
body,  though  not  chosen  by  the  session. 

The  Synod  of  the  year  1839  liad  not  the  power  or  the  right  to  suspend  the 
Presbytery  of  Vermont,  in  the  manner  they  did,  as  specified  in  the  minutes  of  that 
year,  on  pages  2Sth  and  29th.  Messrs.  Anderson,  Miller  and  D,  Gordon,  Avere 
three  of  the  ministerial  members  of  the  Presbytery  of  Cambridge,  who  brought 
in  the  charges  against  the  Presbytery  of  Vermont,  and  as  appears  by  the  min- 
utes of  Synod,  voted  on  the  question  as  to  the  suspension  of  the  latter  Presby- 
tery. According  to  the  principles  of  the  Associate  Church,  it  was  not  right  or 
proper  for  them  to  vote  on  that  question.  The  Synod  had  no  proof  of  the 
charges  against  the  Presbytery  of  Vermont,  on  which  they  convicted  and  sus- 
pended that  Presbytery.  At  the  next  meeting  of  Synod  they  adjudged  that 
the  Presbytery  of  Vermont  did  not  deserve  suspension  at  that  time,  and  they 
brought  it  down  to  the  inferior  censure  of  rebuke  ;  as  appears  by  reference  to 
page  24th  of  Exhibit  D,  on  part  of  Complainants.  The  principles  mentioned 
on  the  24th  page  of  the  narrative,  and  the  general  principles  of  the  moral  law, 
justify  the  Presbytery  of  Vermont  in  their  acts  of  restoration,  relative  to  Dr. 
Bullions.  The  moral  laAv  binds  any  man  to  deliver  his  neighbor,  who  is  in 
danger  unjustly.  Proverbs,  24th  chapter,  11  and  12th  verses.  Mr.  Crary, 
of  counsel  for  Complainants,  objects  to  the  last  answer,  as  not  relevant  to  the 
case. 

Question  by  Mr.  Allen — Is  it  consistent  with  common  sense,  or  the  disci- 
pline of  the  Associate  Church,  for  a  church  court  to  repeat  a  censure  on  on" 
convicted  while  he  lies  under  it  ? 

Answer — I  could  not  say  about  common  sense,  for  that  is  not  always  follow- 
ed in  church  courts ;  but  I  have  never  known  an  instance  of  such  a  censure 
except  in  the  case  of  Dr.  Bullions.  He  was  sentenced  twice  under  the  censure 
of  excommunication.  What  the  Presbytery  of  Cambridge  intended  by  ex- 
communicating him  the  second  time  I  do  not  know,  but  in  other  churches  it 
would  have  been  the  final  sentence  or  casting  him  out  entirely,  and  having 
nothing  further  to  do  with  him.  And  I  have  heard  Messrs.  Miller  and  An- 
derson and  other  members  of  Cambridge  Presbytery,  and  they  spoke  for  the 
whole  Presbytery,  and  declared  in  Synod,  that  the  Presbytery  had  cast  out  Dr. 
Bullions,  and  had  nothing  more  to  do  with  him.  Under  these  circumstances, 
Dr.  Bullions  had  a  right  to  apply  Avhere  he  pleased,  or  to  the  Presbytery  of 
Vermont  for  admission,  and  they  had  a  right  to  admit  him  if  they  considered 
his  sentence  unjust.     Luke,  17th  chapter,  8rd  and  4th  verses. 

The  Presbytery  of  Cambridge  and  the  Synod  of  North  America,  have  been 
in  the  habit,  since  the  case  of  Dr.  Bullions  arose,  of  inflicting  censures  utterly 
disproportioned  to  the  offences  charged  ;  and  I  never  knew  in  my  acquaintance 
of  church  government,  a  person  suspended  for  protesting  against  a  sentence  of 
Presbytery  and  appealing  to  a  higher  court,  till  the  Presbytery  of  Cambridge 
suspended  Dr.  Bullions  for  so  doing.  In  the  case  of  the  the  Rev.  Mr.  Herron,  Sy- 
nod ordered  him  to  be  suspended  unless  he  hvould  confess  his  sin  in  hearing 
the  Rev.  Mr.  Blair  preach  on  a  week  day.  Another  instance  is  that  of  the  case 
of  the  Rev.  David  G.  Bullions,  whom  the  Presbytery  of  Cambridge  have  re- 
cently suspended  and  cited  for  trial,  for  preaching  in  his  father's  church,  when 
he  was  referred  by  Synod  to  the  Presbytery  of  Ohio ; — thus  endeavoring  to 
establish  the  doctrine,  that  they  can  deal  with  a  person  who  is  not  a  member  of 
their  body. 

The  acknowledgement  of  Dr.  Bullions  to  the  Presbytery  of  Cambridge  was 


197 

amply  sufRcient  and  ought  to  have  been  received,  and  was  more  than  was  ne- 
cessary to  be  made  or  ought  to  have  been  required.  The  Defendants  thereup- 
on produce  a  document  subscribed,  "  A.  Anderson,  Presbytery  Clerk,"  dated 
at  Hebron,  August  3d,  1842,  directed  to  Mr.  David  Bullions.  Being  a  citation 
to  appear  before  the  Presbytery  of  Cambridge  and  answer  for  alleged  offences 
and  in  the  meantime  being  suspended.  This  document  being  shown  to  the  wit- 
ness, he  states  that  it  is  in  the  hand  writing  of  the  Rev.  A.  Anderson.  The  pa- 
per is  thereupon  offered  in  evidence  by  Defendants  and  is  annexed  and  mark- 
ed as  Exhibit  F,  on  part  of  said  Defendants.  The  acknowledgement  of  Dr. 
Bullions  of  the  6th  of  October,  1S37,  was  a  proper  one  and  contains  no  improp- 
er or  irreverent  appeal  to  the  Deity,  and  in  peaceful  times  would  never  have 
been  taken  notice  of  in  the  manner  it  was  by  the  Presbytery  of  Cambridge. 
Dr.  Bullions  had  been  charged  by  the  Presbytery  with  having  made  an  insin- 
uation. Dr.  Bullions  expressly  disclaimed  having  made  use  of  the  words  im- 
puted to  him,  and  appealed  to  the  Searcher  of  all  hearts  that  such  was  not  his 
intention,  and  there  was  nothing  improper  in  such  appeal  and  his  acknowledge- 
ment was  sufficient  and  should  have  been  received.  If  there  had  been  an 
improper  expression  used  by  a  member  the  usual  way  is  for  the  moderator  to 
check  him,  and  in  general,  that  is  the  end  of  it  provided,  he  submits.  But 
since  the  Presbytery  of  Cambridge  has  allowed  party  spirit  to  prevail  towards 
Dr.  Bullions  and  others  ;  the  rule  or  practice  has  been  different  toward  him  and 
others.  I  knew  of  attempts  six  years  ago  to  put  Dr.  Bullious  out  of  the  church. 
Mr.  Miller  said  about  that  time  to  me  that  there  would  be  no  peace  in  the 
church  till  he  was  cast  out.  I  have  heard  William  Stevenson,  one  of  com- 
plainants, say  that  those  of  the  Presbytery  who  were  opposed  to  Dr.  Bullions 
would  never  rest  till  they  got  him  out ;  that  Dr.  Bullions  was  so  frank  in  ex- 
pressing his  opinions,  and  his  opponents  were  so  artful  that  they  would  get 
the  advantage  of  him.  John  Robertson,  another  of  Complainants,  intimated 
to  me  his  apprehension  that  such  would  be  the  result. 

I  have  seen  and  read,  and  now  hold  a  copy  of  the  seven  requisitions,  put 
by  the  Presbytery,  at  the  pro  re  nata  meeting,  in  Nov.  1837,  to  Dr.  Bullions. 
Those  requisitions  were  not  such  as  ought  to  have  been  put  by  the  Presbytery, 
and  no  honorable  man  would  have  proposed  them  to  another  unless  he  intend- 
ed it  as  a  plan  to  entrap  him.  I  could  not  have  proposed  them  to  any  man 
who,  I  thought  ought  to  preach  the  gospel  I  have  seen  and  read  and  now 
hold  the  answer  of  Dr.  Bullions,  such  as  it  was,  to  those  requisitions.  Those 
answers  were  more  than  he  ought  to  have  conceded,  and  should  have  been  re- 
ceived by  Presbytery  as  sufficient.  The  exclusion  of  Messrs.  Goodwillie, 
Pringle  and  White  destroyed  the  intention  of  the /^ro  re  nata  meeting,  and  pre- 
vented the  case  from  being  fairly  considered  by  the  Presbytery,  and  thus  ef- 
fectually prevented  the  removal  of  the  suspension.  There  is  no  question  but 
a  minister  of  the  Gaspel,  who  has  been  entirely  cast  out  may  apply  to  any  other 
court  for  re-admission,  for  it  is  no  reason  why  one  Presbytery  should  do  wrong, 
that  another  has  already  done  so.  See  page  24th  of  the  narrative.  Another  court 
may  therefore  re-examine  the  decision  casting  out  a  minister,  and  if  unjust, 
receive  him  again  into  the  church.  I  have  seen  and  read  the  protest  of  Dr. 
Bullions  against  the  decisions  of  Synod,  in  May,  1838.  That  protest  was  a 
legal  protest,  provided  he  was  fully  persuaded  the  truth  was  on  his  side,  and 
that  the  cause  of  truth  would  have  suffered,  had  he  not  made  that  protest. 
And  I  fully  believe  the  cause  of  truth  would  have  suffered,  had  he  not  protest- 
ed. See  page  126th  of  the  declaration  and  testimony ;  also  see  pages  175th 
and  176th  of  the  same  work.  The  book  of  discipline  does  not  sustain  the  in- 
Jerpretation  that  this  protest  was  an  unlawful  declinature.     There  is  nothing 


195 

on  pac^c  50th  of  the  book  of  discipline  which  sustains  the  exclusion  of  Messrs. 
Goodwillie  and  Pringle.  Members  of  a  court  have  no  right  to  exclude  each 
other  from  seats  in  the  court  without  objection  from  the  parties;  objection  made 
by  a  member  to  another  places  tlie  former  in  the  light  of  an  accuser.  The 
book  of  discipline  of  the  General  Assembly  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  is 
not  authority  with  the  Associate  Church.  There  is  nothing  on  page  209ih  of 
Perdivan,  which  sustains  the  Presbytery  in  dispensing  with  three  citations,  on 
the  contrary  that  page  expressly  requires  the  three  citations.  In  Synod,  on 
the  trial  of  Dr.  Bullions,  Mr.  McClelland,  a  brother-in-law  of  Dr.  Bullions, 
and  an  elder  of  Mr.  Andersons,  sat  and  voted  as  a  member.  The  fifth  section 
of  the  declaration  and  testimon}',  page  126th  does  not  shew  that  persons  are 
bound  to  submit  to  decisions  of  church  courts,  right  or  wrong,  but  on  the  con- 
trary, that  page  shews  that  such  person  has  a  right  to  judge  for  himself,  and 
has  a  right  to  remain  in  the  church  unless  they  forcibly  exclude  him. 

Question  by  Mr.  Allen — Do  these  words  in  the  ordination  vow: — "Remem- 
bering that  while  they  act  uprightly,  they  judge  not  for  men,  but  for  the  Lord, 
who  is  with  them  in  the  judgment,"  make  any  difference  m  the  obligations  or 
duties  of  the  person  taking  the  vow? 

Answer — They  limit  the  submission  to  obey  the    Synod  only   when  it  acts 
agreeably  to  the  word  of  God;  and  if  left  out  would  require  a  blind  and  im- 
plicit submission,  such  as  is  required  by  the  Pope  to  his  decrees.     I  know  of 
no  other  offence  for  which  Dr.  Bullions  was  suspended  than  his  having  protes- 
ted and  appealed.     From  the  Presbytery's  own  account  of  the  trial  and  depo- 
sition of  Dr.  Bullions,  on  the  subject  of  the  anonymous  letters,  he  was  not  le- 
gally tried  and  convicted.     I  have  read  and  perused  the  narrative  contained  in 
Exhibit  O,  on  part  of  Complainants,  that  part  of  it  containing  extracts  from  the 
minutes  may  be  correct,  but  the  residue  is  a  mere  ex  parte  statement, put  forth 
by  the  Presbytery,  for  effect  on  the  people.     The  censures  and  other  acts  and 
deeds  of  the  minority  Session,  claiming  to  be  the  Session  of  the  Associate  Con- 
gregation of  Cambridge,  have  no  general  binding  effect,  and  I  regard  them  in 
the  most  charitable  way  as  merely  expressions  of  feeling.     Mr.  Crary  of  coun- 
sel for  Complainants,  objects  to  this  last  answer  as  not  relevant  to  the  case.     I 
have  read  the  answer  of  the  Defendants,  to   the  original  bill  of  complaint  in 
this  cause.     That  answer  in  its  statements,  with  regard  to  the  rules  of  disci- 
pline of  the  Church  and  the  rights  of  the  Defendants  and  the  great  principles 
of  the  Associate  Church,  is  in   general  correct.     I  have  been  acquainted  for 
20  years  with  the  Conoregation  of  Cambridge   and  with  Dr.  Bullions.     The 
Congregation  and  Dr.  Bullions  adhere  to  the  same   principles  they   have  ever 
held  to;  and  I  know  Dr.  Bullions  personally  and  intimately;  and  he  bears  a 
high  character  for  probity,  honesty  and  religious  character.     The  Congregation 
have  always  prospered  under  his  ministrations.     I  have  beared  him  preach  often 
of  late  years.     Within  two  or  three  years  he  has  preached  frequently  in  the 
city.     He  preaches  the  same  gospel  and  doctrine  that  he  ever  did. 

A  committee  of  the  Associate  Synod  of  North  America  have  since  the  trial, 
deposition  and  excommunication  of  Dr.  Bullions,  obtained  and  published  new 
and  ex  parte  testimony  on  the  subject  of  the  anonymous  letters,  which  is  con- 
tained in  the  Religious  Monitor  for  April,  1S42,  number  11,  pages  493rd  and 
494th.  There  was  no  legal  proof  on  the  trial  of  Dr.  Bullions,  as  appears  from 
Presbytery's  own  account,  that  Dr.  Bullions  was  the  author  or  writer  of  those 
letters.  I  know  the  Rev.  Abraham  Anderson,  who  is  a  member  of  the  Presby- 
tery of  Cambridge.  He  was  here  yesterday  at  the  table  writing  during  my 
examination.  Mr.  Crary,  of  counsel  for  Complainants,  objects  to  the  testimo- 
ny as  follows  : — So  far  as  the  examination  of  Mr.  Stark  has  proceeded  without 


199 

objection,  it  has  been  under  an  agreement  between  the  parties,  that  any  objec- 
tion might  be  made  thereto  without  particularly  specifying  the  same  at  the 
close  thereof,  and  with  the  same  effect  as  if  the  same  had  been  made  at  the 
time  he  stated  the  facts,  or  expressed  the  opinion,  and  under  such  agree- 
ment, Mr.  Crary,  of  counsel  for  Complainants,  now  objects  to  all  of  the  said 
examination,  which  is  irrelevant  or  immaterial,  and  which  states  the  opinion  of 
the  witness  against  the  decisions  either  of  Presbytery  of  Synod  ;  and  also 
against  the  exhibit  marked  F,  on  part  of  Defendants  ; — which  objections  are 
over-ruled  and  the  evidence  is  received  by  the  examiner. 

ANDKEW  STARK. 
Sworn,  examined  and  subscribed,  ^ 
this  14th  day  of   September,  in  ^ 
the  year  1842,  before  me,  ) 

JAMES  CtIBSON,  Examiner  in  Chancery, 

— ©©©— 

IN   CHANCERY, 

Before    the    Chancellor. 


William  Stevenson,  et  al.  ) 

vs.  >  Cross-examination  of  Rev.  Andrew  Stark. 

Alexander  Bullions,  et  al.  ) 


The  Rev.  Andrew  Stark,  a  witness  produced,  on  the  part  of  the  Defendants 
in  the  above  entitled  cause,  sworn  by  the  Examiner,  and  examined  by  Mr.  Al- 
len, of  counsel  for  said  Defendants,  being  now  examined  by  Mr.  Crary,  of 
counsel  for  said  Complainants,  deposeth  thereupon  as  follows,  viz  : — 

The  form  of  church  government  of  the  Associate  Church  is  called  a  Pres- 
byterian form  of  church  government.  In  order  to  admission  to  communion 
and  baptism  in  this  church,  a  belief  in  this  form  of  church  government  is  re- 
quired of  the  applicant.  Under  this  form  of  government  there  is  required  a 
Session,  Presbytery  and  Synod,  where  there  are  more  than  two  Presbyteries. 

The  session  has  no  jurisdiction  over  the  minister.  All  complaints  against  a 
minister  must  originate  in  Presbytery.  The  Associate  Church  in  North  Amer- 
ica has  but  the  Associate  Synod  of  North  America.  There  are  two  bodies, 
each  claiming  to  be  the  Associate  Synod  of  North  America.  The  one  I  be- 
long to  was  unjustly  excluded,  and  we  claim  to  be  the  true  Synod, — the  other 
having  departed  from  the  principles  of  the  Church. 

The  Associate  Synod  of  North  America  was  formed  by  a  few  persons  com- 
posed of  two  ministers  and  those  who  adhered  to  them,  who  refused  to  enter 
into  the  union  between  the  Associate  and  the  Reformed  Churches,  in  or  about 
the  year  1781 ;  for  particulars  see  the  narrative.  These  persons  first  called  them- 
selves the  Associate  Presbytery  of  Pennsylvania,  and  continued  to  do  so  for 
about  twenty  years.  This  Presbytery  was  at  first  in  subordination  to  the 
Church  of  Scotland.  When  this  body  became  a  Synod  they  called  themselves 
the  Associate  Synod  of  North  America.  This  was  about  the  commencement 
of  this  century.  That  Synod  unjustly  expelled  certain  persons,  who  now  claim 
to  be  the  Associate  Synod  of  North  America,  they  do  this  according  to  the  nar- 
rative, page  24th  and  the  general  principles  of  the  Church. 

Question  by  Mr.  Crary. — When  was  this  body  of  the  excluded  formed  ? 

Answer. — That  body  held  its  first  separate  meeting  as  a  separate  body  in  June, 
1841.  They  met  in  Cambridge,  Washington  Co.  New- York.  It  is  composed  of 
the  Associate  Presbyteries  of  Cambridge,  Vermont  and  Albany.  The  Associate 


200 

Congregation  of  Cambridge  belonging  to  this  body,  has  two  Pastors,  Dr.  Bui* 
lions  and  the  Rev.  David  G.  Bullions  as  I  have  heard  and  believe.  In  June, 
1841,  the  Pastor  of  that  Congregation  was  Dr.  Bullions — this  I  have  heard  and 
believe.  I  was  present  at  the  meeting  of  Synod  in  June,  1841, — the  Rev, 
Messrs.  Stalker,  White,  Thomas  Goodwillie,  Pringle  and  the  Rev.  Dr.  Peter 
Bullions  were  there.  Dr.  Alexander  Bullions  and  myself  were  also  present. 
The  Rev.  Mr.  Quackenbush  is  a  member  of  this  Synod.  The  Rev.  Mr.  Blair 
and  the  Rev.  David  G.  iiullionsare  also  members  of  the  Synod.  These  are 
the  ministerial  members  that  I  recollect,  of  that  Synod.  There  was  a  meet- 
ing of  the  Associate  Synod  of  North  America  at  Cambridge  in  June,  1842.  The 
Synod  meets  as  often  as  they  please.  This  was  the  annual  meeting.  The 
Synod  had  never  met  at  Cambridge  before  the  meeting  in  1841.  I  have  at- 
tended the  meeting  of  the  Associate  Synod  at  Pittsburgh.  In  1S40,  the  meet- 
ing of  the  Synod  was  at  Baltimore.  The  Synod  met  at  Cambridge  and  was 
constituted  by  prayer  by  the  senior  member  in  the  usual  way.  I  was  not  pres- 
ent at  the  meeting  of  .Synod  in  1840.  I  do  not  know  where  the  Synod  of 
1840  adjourned  to  meet  further  than  is  mentioned  in  Exhibit  D,  on  part  of 
Complainants,  page  19  where  it  states  that  it  was  to  meet  at  Washington^ 
Pennsylvania,  on  the  4th  Wednesday  of  May  next,  at  4  o'clock. 

Previous  to  June,  1841,  there  might  have  been  a  meeting  of  the  Synod  ;  I 
cannot  of  my  own  knowledge  state.  Those  persons  I  have  named  as  present  at 
the  meeting  of  Synod  at  Cambridge,  in  June,  1841,  acted  in  accordance  with 
the  principles  and  views  of  the  Synod,  which  met  at  Philadelphia,  at  the  time 
I  attended  previous  to  the  defection  of  the  majority.  The  defection  commen- 
ced in  1830,  and  continued  down  to  the  departure  of  the  majority  from  the 
principles  of  the  Associate  Church.  The  true  Synod  met  at  Cambridge, 
Washington  County,  in  June,  1841.  A  number  of  ministers  that  formerly  be- 
longed to  the  Associate  Synod,  left  the  practice  of  the  church  and  made  a  de- 
fection from  some  of  its  principles  and  violated  its  discipline.  There  is  no 
other  Synod  holding  the  same  principles  and  discipline  that  I  know  of,  except 
the  Associate  Synod  of  North  America,  which  met  at  Cambridge,  in  June, 
1841.  The  Synod  which  met  in  Cambridge,  in  June,  1841,  is  the  only  true 
Synod  of  the  Associate  Church  in  North  America,  because  it  holds  the  true 
principles  that  have  always  been  held  by  the  Associate  Church.  I  have  al- 
ways heard  and  believe  that  there  is  another  body  calling  itself  the  Associate 
Synod  of  North  America,  but  in  my  opinion  that  is  not  the  true  Synod.  It  is 
jnatter  of  fact  that  it  is  not  the  true  Synod,  according  to  secession  principles. 
It  is  stated  in  Exhibit  D,  on  part  of  Complainants,  that  the  erroneous  Synod 
was  to  meet  in  Washington,  Pennsylvania,  in  May,  1841. 

Question  by  Mr.  Crary — Did  some  of  the  members,  composing  this  Synod, 
which  met  in  Cambridge,  Washington  County,  in  1841,  and  claiming  to  be- 
long to  the  Presbyteries  of  Albany  and  Vermont,  memorialize  the  Synod  which 
met  in  Washington,  Pennsylvania,  on  the  fourth  Wednesday  in  May,  1841, 
as  the  Associate  Synod  of  North  America  ?  Mr.  Allen  of  counsel  for  Defend- 
ants, objects  to  this  question  as  improper,  and  as  immaterial  and  irrelevant, 
and  because  the  minutes  are  the  best  evidence.  Which  objection  is  over-ruled 
by  the  examiner  and  the  evidence  received. 

Answer — I  can  not  answer  the  question  as  it  now  stands.  Some  of  the 
members  did  memorialize  that  body,  and  called  them  the  Synod  out  of  court- 
esy, because  they  called  themselves  so;  some  of  them  thought  it  wrong,  but 
thought  finally  it  did  not  involve  any  principle  and  as  a  matter  of  courtesy  they 
gave  them  that  name. 

Question  by  Mr.  Crary — Who  signed  this  memorial 


201 

Answer — I  do  not  know.  The  true  Associate  Synod  of  North  America, 
met  at  Cambridge,  Washington  County,  again  in  June,  1842,  and  did  as  the 
true  Synod,  adjourn  to  meet  again  in  another  year. 

Question  by  Mr.  Crary — Do  you  belong  to  the  Associate  Synod,  which  met 
in  Cambridge,  Washington  County? 
Answer — I  do. 

Question  by  Mr.  Crary — Do  you  know  whether  the  Associate  Synod  of  North 
America,  that  meets  in  Philadelphia,  Pittsburgh,  &c.,  still  continues  to  hold  its 
meetings? 

Answer — I  have  heard  so. 

Question  by  Mr.  Crary — Do  you  belong  to  the  Synod,  last  mentioned? 
Answer — I  only  belong  to  the  true  Associate  Synod  of  North  America. 
Question  by  Mr.  Crary — Is  that  the  Synod  which  met  in  Cambridge,  Wash- 
ington County  ? 
Answer — It  is. 

Question  by  Mr.  Crary — Did  this  body  thus  organized  in  Cambridge,  Wash- 
ington County,  appoint  the  usual  officers  of  a  Synod,  moderator,  clerk,  &c.  ? 

Answer — I  did  not  say  any  thing  about  being  organized.     I  said  that  the  Sy- 
nod met  agreeably  to  usage  and  the  oldest  members  was  called  upon  to  call  the 
Synod  to  order  and  constitute  it  by  piayer  agreeable  to  usage. 
Question  by  Mr.  Crary — Do  they  have  a  clerk? 
Answer — They  do;  they  proceeded  to  appoint  one. 

Question  by  Mr.  Crary. — Did  the  Synod  thus  organized, adjourn  to  meet  again 
the  next  year? 

Answer — The  Synod  after  the  business  was  finished,  adjourned  to  meet 
again  the  next  year. 

Question  by  Mr.  Crary — Were  you  present  at  the  meetings  of  Cambridge 
Presbytery  you  have  spoken  of? 

Answer — I  was  not  present  at  any  of  the  meetings  in  Washington  County, 
to  which  I  have  referred,  but  I  have  been  present  at  meetings  of  Presbytery, 
when  Synod  was  in  session. 

Question  by  Mr.  Crary — At  any  meeting  of  which  you  have  been  present  were 
there  any  proceedings  against  Mr.  Bullions  ? 

Answer — I  cannot  tell  how  often  I  was  present  at  these  meetings  at  Phila- 
delphia, Baltimore,  &c.,  and  I  have  heard  the  Presbytery  making  up  their  re- 
port and  giving  statements  of  their  proceedings  against  Dr.  Bullions  ;  and  the 
whole  of  the  proceedings  of  Presbytery  read  in  Synod,  and  that  I  was  not  pres^ 
ent  at  the  meetings  of  the  Presbytery  in  Washington  County,  I  stated  clearly 
yesterday. 

Question  by  Mr.  Crary — Is  it  from  information  of  the  proceedings  against 
Dr.  Bullions  that  you  give  the  opinions  you  have  stated  of  the  proceedings 
against  him? 

Answer — It  is  from  the  public,  authorized  documents  of  the  Presbytery  laid 
before  Synod  and  from  statements  made  by  the  Presbytery  and  by  Dr. 
Bullions  in  the  Synod  and  which  all  parties  admit  to  be  true. 

Question  by  Mr.  Crary — Was  you  present  before  the  Cambridge  Presbytery 
in  Washington  County  when  the  proceedings  of  which  you  have  spoken  took 
place  against  Dr.  Bullions?  Mr.  Allen  objects  to  this  question  on  the  ground 
that  it  has  been  asked  and  answered  more  than  once  before.  The  question 
withdrawn. 

Question  by  Mr.  Crary — Who  is  to  judge  and  whether  the  delinquent  can 
decide  against  the  decision  of  the  court  and  remain  a  faithful  member  of  the 
Church  in  full  communion  ? 
26 


202 

Answer — TJie  answer  1  give  is  in  the  words  of  the  declaration  and  testimo- 
ny. "Every  man  has  a  right  to  judge  for  himself  concerning  the  determina- 
tion of  Church  judicatories,  yet  he  ought  not  to  oppose  any  decision  of  the 
courts  of  Christ,  unless  he  is  fully  persuaded  in  his  own  mind  that  his  truth 
and  cause  will  suffer  by  his  silence."     See  page  126. 

He  can  only  be  excluded  unlawfully  if  he  acts  so.  Such  exclusion  would 
not  deprive  him  of  his  right,  but  only  make  them  more  guilty.  See  ninth 
Chapter  John. 

Question  by  Mr.  Crary — Would  he  be  a  member  in  full  communion  notwith- 
standing the  decision  of  the  Church  judicatory  against  him? 

Answer — He  would  according  to  the  principles  of  the  Secession  Church. — 
He  would  be  only  suffering  injustice.  That  could  not  invalidate  the  rights  and 
the  guilt  of  the  injustice  would  be  on  the  court  unjustly  excluding  him. 

Question  by  Mr.  Crary — Is  not  the  right  of  judging  in  case  of  delinquency 
given  to  the  church  judicatory? 

Answer — The  right  of  judging  uprightly  or  agreeable  to  the  word  of  God 
is  given  to  them,  but  no  other  right.. 

Question  by  Mr.  Crary — Could  a  Church  judlcatorj^,  punish  for  delinquency, 
or  exclude  any  person  from  fellowship  if  a  delinquent  had  the  right  to  remain 
in  defiance  of  the  authority  of  the  Church  ? 

Answer — They  could.  They  have  only  to  judge  uprightly,  and  according  to 
the  word  of  God,  and  their  judgment  is  valid. 

Question  by  Mr.  Crary — Who  has  the  right  to  decide,  the  delinquent  or  the 
court? 

Answer — If  the  court  goes  contrary  to  the  Scripture,  the  delinquent  has  a 
right  to  judge  for  himself,  concerning  the  determinations  of  church  judica- 
tories.    See  page  126tli  of  the  declaration  and  testimony. 

Question  by  Mr.  Crary — In  every  case,  when  the  delinquent  should  decide 
against  the  authority  of  the  church  court,  must  the  court  submit  to  the  decis- 
ion of  the  delinquent? 

Answer — I  know  of  no  such  thing  as  a  delinquent  requiring  a  church  court 
to  submit  to  him ;  nevertheless  it  is  the  duty  of  a  church  court  to  review  its 
proceedings  if  contrary  to  Scripture,  and  correct  its  erroneous  decisions. 

Question  by  Mr.  Crary — Would  a  church  judicatory  be  of  any  use  if  it 
could  not  rid  itself  of  delinquent  members? 

Answer — I  can't  answer  such  a  question  as  that;  it  would  be  a  mere  case 
supposed,  which  could  never  happen ;  it  is  absurd,  and  I  am  unable  to  answer 
it.  There  is  no  doubt  that  a  church  court  to  make  itself  useful  should  do 
right;  if  that  is  what  is  meant  by  the  question.  The  only  way  to  maintain 
its  authority  and  be  useful  is  to  do  justice. 

Question  by  Mr.  Crary — How  is  an  individual,  affected  by  the  decision  of  a 
church  court,  and  who  was  not  present  to  hear  the  trial,  to  determine  whether 
the  court  has  decided  right  or  wrong,  is  it  by  the  reports  or  decisions  of  the 
court  itself  or  those  of  the  individual  so  judged? 

Answer — I  would  consider  them  both,  and  after  getting  all  the  information  I 
could  from  them  and  other  sources  I  would  decide  by  the  Scriptures  and  the 
subordinate  standards  of  the  church.. 

Question  bv  Mr.  Crary — Are  the  decisions  of  a  church  court  and  the  opin- 
ions of  an  individual  adjudged,  to  be  held  of  equal  authority,  by  all  church 
members  affected  by  it  ? 

Answer — Neither  of  them  are  to  be  held  of  any  authority  whatever  further 
than  they  agree  with  the  standards  of  the  church. 

Question   by   Mr.    Crary — Dr.  Bullions   was  referred  by  the  Synod  to  the 


203 

Cambridge  Presbytery,  to  make  repentance  and  submission.  He  applied  to 
the  Vermont  Presbytery,  and  there  made  repentance  and  submission.  Was 
-that  a  performance  of  the  direction  of  Synod?  Mr.  Allen,  of  counsel  for  De- 
fendants, objects  to  this  question  on  the  following  grounds;  first,  that  it  as- 
sumes to  exist  facts  not  proved.  Second,  calling  for  evidence  which  can  only 
be  proved  by  the  production  of  the  minutes  of  the  Synod.  The  examiner 
over-rules  the  objection,  and  receives  and   takes  down  the  answer. 

Answer — Provided  the  S^mod  referred  him  to  the  Presbytery  of  Cambridge, 
and  the  Presbytery  of  Cambridge  refused  to  deal  with  him,  or  had  cast  him 
out,  then,  according  to  the  principles  of  our  church,  it  was  right  for  him  to  ap- 
ply to  any  Presbytery  he  chose  holding  the  like  principles. 

Question  by  Mr.  Crary — Do  Messrs.  Miller,  Anderson  and  A.  and  D.  Gor- 
don belong  to  the  Synod  which  met  in  Cambridge  in  1841  ? 

Answer — They  do  not. 

Question  by  Mr.  Crary. — Do  you  know  the  Complainants  in  this  cause  and 
■•do  any  of  them  belong  to  that  Synod  ? 

Answer — I  know  some  of  them,  but  none  of  them  that  I  know  of  belong  to 
it. 

Question  by  Mr.  Crary — Do  you  feel  perfectly  indifferent  between  the  par- 
ties in  this  suit? 

Answer — I  have  no  personal  predilections  in  favor  of  either  of  them,  but 
wish  that  the  interest  of  righteousness  and  truth  may  prevail. 

Question  by  Mr.  Crary — Is  the  interest  of  truth  and  righteousness  in  favor 
of  or  against  Dr.  Bullions  ? 

Answer — So  far  as  my  knowledge  goes,  the  principles  and  discipline  of  the 
Associate  Church  are  held  by  him  and  the  Defendants  in  this  c^use. 

Question  by  Mr.  Crary — Do  you  know  that  Dr.  Bullions  and  Mr.  Anderson 
are  opposed  to  each  other  in  this  controversy  ? 

Answer — I  have  known  Mr.  Anderson  always  talking  against  Dr.  Bullions 
when  he  said  any  thing  about  him,  but  what  his  internal  feeling  may  be  I  can- 
not say. 

Question  by  Mr.  Crary — In  this  controversy  have  you  any  choice  as  to  who 
succeeds  ? 

Answer — None,  except  as  I  have  stated  that  the  one  in  the  right  should  pre- 
vail. 

Question  by  Mr.  Crary — Is  there  more  than  one  body  which  claims  to  be 
the  Presbytery  of  Albany  ?  This  question  is  objected  to  by  Mr.  Allen  of  coun- 
sel for  Defendants  on  the  grounds  that  it  is  altogether  immaterial  and  irrele- 
vant. Which  objection  is  over-ruled  by  the  examiner  and  the  evidence  re- 
ceived. 

Answer — There  was  more  than  one  such  body  but  v/hether  there  is  now  or 
not  I  cannot  state. 

Question  by  Mr.  Crary — At  what  time  did  they  exist  ? 

Answer — As  far  as  I  know,  about  the  year  183S.  This  was  the  first  I  knew 
of  it. 

Question  by  Mr.  Crary — Did  these  two  bodies  which  you  have  stated  as  ex- 
isting in  1838,  make  reports  to  the  Synod  which  met  in  Philadelphia,  in  May, 
of  that  year,  and  did  each  claim  to  be  the  Presbytery  of  Albany  ?  This  ques- 
-tion  is  objected  to  by  Mr.  Allen,  of  counsel  for  Defendants,  on  the  grounds  that 
it  is  irrelevant  and  immaterial ;  which  objection  is  over-ruled  by  the  Examiner, 
and  the  evidence  received. 

Answer — I  cannot  state  as  to  their  making  reports,  but  each  body  at  that 
-meeting  of  Synod,  claimed  to  be  the  Presbytery  of  Albany. 


204 

Question  by  Mr,  Crary — Did  you  belong  to  one  of  these  bodies  at  that  time  ? 

Answer — I  did. 

"Were  the  members  of  tlic  body  to  which  you  belonged,  suspended  by  Sy- 
nod from  tlie  fellowship  of  tbe  ChurcJiaud  tlie  exercise  of  their  offices  as  min- 
isters, till  they  repent  V  This  question  is  objected  to  by  Mr.  Allen,  of  coun- 
sel for  Defendants,  on  same  i,aounds  as  before,  and  that  the  minutes  of  the  Pres- 
bytery are  the  best  evidence.  The  Examiner  over-rules  the  objection  and  re- 
ceives the  testimony. 

^  Answer — I  was  not  present,  but  I  heard  that  we  were  suspended,  substan- 
tially, for  maintaining  that  six  was  a  greater  number  than  three  ;  that  is,  that 
the  Synod  decided  that  the  three  members  that  retired  were  the  Presbytery  and 
that  the  six  members  who  remained  in  session  doing  the  business  were  not 
the  Presbytery. 

Question  by  Mr.  Crary — Did   Synod  refuse  to  acknowledge  the  body  of  i 
which  you  were  a  member,  to  be  the  Presbytery  of  Albany  ? 

Answer — They  did  so,  as  stated  above,  and  contrary  to  all  the  rules  of  dis- 
cipline in  that  or  any  other  Presbyterian  Church. 

Question  by  Mr.  Crary — Do  the  ministerial  members  of  this  body  thus  re- 
jected form  a  Presbytery  in  the  Synod  stated  by  you  to  have  met  in  Cambridge 
last  year  and  this  ? 

Answer — They  are  the  ministerial  members  of  the  Presbytery  ot  Albany 
and  belong  to  the  Associate  Synod  of  North  America,  which  met  at  Cam- 
bridge. 

The  cross-examination  thus  far  having  been  read  to  the  witness  he  corrects 
the  first  part  of  it  relative  to  the  ministerial  members  of  Synod  which  met  at 
Cambridge,  1841,  as  follows  :  Where  it  is  stated  that  "  the  one  I  belonged  to 
was  unjustly  excluded"  it  should  read  "  the  ministerial  members  belonging  to 
that  Synod  were  unjustly  excluded  by  the  Synod  which  met  in  Philadelphia." 

Mr.  Allen,  of  counsel  for  Defendants  makes  a  general  objection  to  the  whole 
of  the  cross-examination  of  this  witness  on  the  ground  that  it  is  irrelevant  and 
immaterial;  which  objection  it  was  understood  by  the  parties  should  have  the 
same  effect  as  if  made  particularly  to  each  question,  and  by  the  examiner  over- 
ruled. 

ANDREW  STARK. 

Sworn,  cross-examined  and  subscrib-  ) 
ed,  this  15th  day  of  Sept.,  in  the  > 
year  1842,  before  me,  ) 

JAIME S  GIBSON,  Examiner  in  Chancery, 


—&Qf^— 


IN  CHANCERY. 
Before  the  Chancellor. 


William  Stevenson,  et  ai    ^ 

vs.  >      Re-examination  of  Rev.  Andrew  Stark. 

Alexander  Bullions,  et  al.  ) 


The  Rev.  Andrew  Stark,  a  witness  produced  on  the  part  of  the  Defendants 
in  the  above  entitled  cause,  sworn  by  the  Examiner  and  examined  by  Mr.  Al- 
len, of  counsel  for  the  Defendants,  and  thereupon  cross-examined  by  Mr.  Crary 
of  counsel  for  the  Complainants,  being  now  re-examined  by  Mr.  Allen,  depo- 
Seth  as  follows,  viz  : 

Question  by  Mr.  Allen— According  to  the  principles  of  the  Associate  Church 


205 


is  the  Synod  which  met  in  Cambridge,  WasJiington  County,  in  1S41,  the  Asso- 
ciate Synod  of  North  America,  and  were  those  which  met  there  justified  in 
claiming  it  such,  according  to  the  principles  of  the  Associate  Church  ? 

Answer — Yes ;  the  following  is  the  principle  of  the  Associate  Church. 
When  a  majority  of  the  office  bearers  of  the  Church  do  obstinately  carry  on  a 
course  of  defection  from  reformation  principles  once  attained  unto,  "the  minority 
in  the  case,  though  very  few  in  number,  have  divine  right  and  warrant  to  exer- 
cise the  keys  of  government  and  discipline  in  a  distinct  capacity  from  them. 
Gib's  display,  asserts  this  as  well  as  Wilson's  defence  of  the  reformation  princi- 
ples of  the  Church  of  Scotland.  The  words  of  the  above  are  quoted  from  the 
letter — see  Gib's  display,  second  volume,  page  68,  also  pages  76,  77,  8  and 
9  of  the  same  work,  I  quote  the  example  of  the  Associate  Presbytery  of  Penn- 
sylvania in  these  words  :  "  When  a  minority  of  that  Presbytery  declared  and 
protested  on  good  grounds  that  the  powers  of  the  true  Associate  Presbytery  of 
Pennsylvania  were  vested  only  in  them,  although  the  majority  of  the  Associate 
Presbytery  of  Pennsylvania,  including  the  moderator,  had  joined  in  the  union 
of  1872 ;  which  deed  of  the  minority  of  the  Presbytery  lies  at  the  foundation 
of  the  Associate  Church  in  this  country."     See  narrative. 

Question  by  Mr.  Allen — Has  the  Associate  Synod  of  North  America,  which 
met  at  Cambridge,  departed  in  any  respect  from  the  rules,  faith  or  discipline 
of  the  Associate  Church? 

Answer — Certainly  not;   they  declare  that  they  adhere  to  all  the  principles 
set  forth  in  the  standards  of  the  Associate  Church. 

ANDREW  STARK. 

Sworn,  re-examined  and  subscrib- 
ed, this  15th  day  of  Sept.  in  the 
the  year  1842,  before  me, 

JAMES  GIBSON,  Examiner  in  Chancery. 


IN  CHANCERY, 

Before  the  Chancellor. 


William  Stevenson,  et  al.    )  f    .i,  •     .•        r  t» 

'  (  r  arther  cross-exammation  of  Rev. 


A  -D  *  <    /    C  Andrew  Stark. 

Alexander  Bullions,  el  al. 


The  Rev.  Andrew  Stark,  a  witness,  produced  on  the  part  of  the  Defendants 
in  the  above  entitled  cause,  aud  sworn  by  the  Examiner,  and  examined  by 
Mr.  Allen,  of  counsel  for  Defendants,  cross-examined  by  Mr.  Crary,  of 
counsel  for  Complainants,  afterwards  re-examined,  being  now  further  cross- 
examined,  deposeth  as  follows,  viz. : 

Question  by  Mr.  Crary — Does  it  appear  on  pages  44th,  45th  and  46th,  of 
Exhibit  E,  on  part  of  Complainants,  that  the  Presbytery  of  which  Messrs, 
Marshall  and  Clarksor.  were  the  ministerial  members,  was  connected  with  and 
in  subordination  to  the  Associate  Synod,  and  did  they  make  an  appeal  to  that 
Synod  ? 

Answer — It  is  so  stated  on  those  pages. 

Question  by  Mr.  Crary — What  was  the  decision  thereon  ? 

Answer — It  is  stated  that  the  account  of  their  conduct  was  laid  before  Synod, 


206 

and  unanimously  aa^rccd  to  on  this  i^^romid,  tliat  tlio  circumstance  of  the  major- 
ity of  any  church  court,  deserting  tlieir  profession,  does  not  destroy  the  power 
of  the  rest. 

ANDREW  STARK. 
Sworn,  cross-examined  and  suli-  ) 
scribed  this  ISthday  of  Sept.  > 
in  the  vear  184:2,  before  me.       ) 

'JAMES  GIBSON,  Examiner  in  Chancery. 

I  certify  that  I  have  examined  and  compared  the  foregoing  with  the  original 
.deposition  of  the  Rev.  Andrew  Stark,  and  that  the  same  is  a  true  copy  thereof. 

JAS.  GIBSON,  Examiner  in  Chancery. 


IN    CHANCERY, 
Before   the   Chancellor, 


WiLLiABi  Stevenson,  et  al,      ) 

vs.  />  Deposition  of  Rev.  Archibald  Whyte,  Sen. 

Alexander  Bullions,  et  al.     ) 


Deposition  of  the  Reverend  Archibald  Whyte,  senior,  a  witness  produced  on 
■the  part  of  the  Defendants,  and  sworn  and  examined  in  a  certain  cause,  now 
pending  in  the  Court  of  Chancery  of  the  State  of  New-York,  before  the 
Chancellor  of  said  State,  wherein  William  Stevenson,  William  McGeoch, 
Edward  Small,  John  McArthur,  James  McArthur,  Robert  McArthur,  Peter 
Mc Arthur,  George  Small,  Jam^es  Arnot,  John  Arnot,  Edward  Cook,  John  Ro- 
bertson, Thomas  McMorris,  James  Hoy,  John  McDoual,  Isaac  Ashton,  John 
Foster  and  William  Livingston,  members  of  the  church  in  full  communion, 
tnown  as  the  Associate  Congregation  of  Cambridge  of  the  County  of  Wash- 
ington and  State  of  New- York,  adhering  to  the  principles  of  the  Associate 
Presbytery  of  Pennsylvania,  formerly,  now  the  Associate  Synod  of  North 
America,  are  Complainants,  and  Alexander  Bullions,  James  Shiland,  Robert 
McLelland,  Peter  Hill,  Trustees  of  the  Associate  Congregation  of  Cambridge 
,of  the  County  of  Washington,  adhering  to  the  principles  of  the  Associate 
Presbytery  of  Pennsylvania,  formerly,  now  the  Associate  Synod  of  North 
America,  are  Defendants,  on  the  part  of  the  Defendants,  before  Jas.  Gibson, 
,one  of  the  Examiners  in  Chancery  in  and  for  the  County  of  Washington,  at 
Union  Hall,  in  the  village  of  Salem,  in  said  county,  commencing  on  the  15th 
.day  of  Sept.,  in  the  year  1842,  and  proceeding  de  die  in  diem,  as  follows,  viz  : 

I  reside  in  the  town  of  Argyle,  in  the  county  of  Washington  ;  I  am  eighty- 
seven  years  of  age,  and  am  a  minister  of  the  gospel  of  the  Associate  Church, 
.and  I  have  been  such  about  53  j^ears.  I  have  been  a  minister  in  America,  all 
that  time,  except  about  one  year  previous  to  my  being  ordained  ;  I  was  a  mem- 
ber of  the  Associate  Presbytery  of  Cambridge,  in  the  year  1837.  I  waspres- 
.ent  at  a  pro  re  nata  meeting  of  that  Presbytery  in  Cambridge  in  November, 
1837.  I  was  excluded  from  a  seat  in  Presbytery  at  that  meeting ;  there  were 
others  excluded  at  the  same  time,  viz :  Messrs.  Goodwillie  and  Pringle.  I 
■reckon  I  was  not  legally  excluded  from  my  seat  at  that  time  according  to  the 
f  ules  and  discipline  of  the  Associate  Church.  They  alleged  I  was  partial  but 
there  was  no  witness  of  it.  jl  thought  it  was  not  according  to  the  rules  and  dis- 
,cipline  of  the  church  to  exclude  me  from  my  seat  without  any  proof  of  the 
|ruth  of  the  charges  against  me  or  examining  witnesses  to  sustain  them,—- 


207 

Messrs.  Goodwillie  and  Pringle  were  first  excluded ;  they  were  included  in 
one  resolution;  there  was  no  investigation  or  witness  sworn  to  prove  the 
charges  against  them.  I  never  heard  of  such  a  thing  as  including  two  per- 
sons charged  with  offences,  in  one  resolution.  I  thought  it  was  not  according 
to  the  rules  and  discipline  of  the  church  so  to  do. 

I  have  been  acquainted  with  Dr.  B.  for  many  years,  and  since  the  year  1807.- 
I  have,  since  that  time,  had  frequent  and  familiar  intercourse  with  him.  I  be- 
leive  he  has  been  a  very  useful  and  diligent  pastor  in  his  Congregation,  in  vis- 
iting the  sick,  and  faithfully  performing  the  other  duties  of  his  charge.  So  far 
as  I  have  heard  him  preach  he  has  adhered  to  the  doctrines,  principles  and 
practice  of  the  Associate  Church.  I  have  heard  him  preach  frequently.  I  had 
attended  one  meeting  of  Presbytery  some  considerable  time  previous  to  the 
meeting  in  November,  1837.  I  had  not  attended  the  Presbytery  often,  as  I 
could  not  hear  distinctly  what  was  said.  1  attended  a  number  of  the  meetings 
of  Presbytery  between  the  years  1828  and  1837.  The  Presbytery  of  Cam- 
bridge during  those  years,  insisted  too  much  on  frivolous  and  trifling  matters, 
against  Dr.  Bullions.  Their  conduct  towards  him  did  not  appear  to  me  to  be 
scriptural  or  christian,  there  was  too  much  animosity  against  him.  I  have  been 
acquainted  with  the  Congregation  of  Cambridge  since  the  year  1788.  It  was 
organized  in  1785.  The  document  now  shown  to  the  witness,  and  proved  by  hirti' 
to  be  in  the  hand  writing  of  the  Rev.  Thomas  Beveridge.  This  document  is 
the  original  minute  of  the  organization  of  that  Congregation,  by  which  it  ap- 
apears  that  it  was  organized  on  the  13th  of  August,  1785.  That  Congrega- 
tion have  from  the  time  of  their  organization  up  to  the  present  time,  continued 
to  adhere  to  the  principles  of  that  Church.  I  was  present  when  the  Rev.  Da- 
vid G.  Bullions  was  ordained  and  installed  as  the  colleague  and  successor  of  his* 
father,  the  Rev.  Dr.  Bullions.  He  was  ordained  and  installed  according  to  the 
doctrines  and  principles  of  the  Associate  Church.  And  took  the  usual  ordina- 
tion vows  required  by  the  formula  of  that  Church. 

ARCH.  WHYTE. 

Sworn,  examined  and  subscribed,  ) 
this  15th  day  of  September,  in  ^ 
the  year  1842,  before  me,  ) 

JAMES  GIBSON,  Examiner  in  Chancery. 

Mr.  Crary  of  Counsel  for  Complainants  objects  to  the  whole  of  the  direct  ex-- 
amination  of  this  witness,  and"  especially  to  the  last  two  answers,  as  not  at  alB 
relevant  to  the  case. 


— ©i©^— 


IN  CHANCERY, 
Before  the  Chancellor. 


WiLLiABi  Stevenson,  et  al.  ) 

vs.  ^  Cross-deposition  of  Rev.  Arch'd.  Whyte,  Senr,- 

Alexander  Bullions,  et  al.  ) 

The  Rev.  Archibald  Whyte,  senr.  a  witness  produced  on  the  part  of  the  De-^ 
fendants  in  this  cause,  and  examined  by  Mr.  Allen,  of  counsel  for  Defendants,, 
being  now  examined  by  Mr.  Crary,  of  counsel  for  said  Complainants,  deposeth; 
as  follows,  viz  : — I  have  never  been  a  settled  minister  over  any  Congregations 

Question — Do  you  belong  to  the  Synod  which  met  in  Cambridge  in  1841  ? 


208 

Answer— I  do.  I  opened  that  meeting  of  Synod  with  prayer.  It  was  the 
first  meeting  ol"  that  Synod  in  1841. 

Question — Was  this  the  first  meeting  that  tliat  Synod  ever  had? 

Answer — I  believe  it  was. 

Question — Was  the  ministerial  part  of  this  Synod  composed  chiefly  of  sus- 
pended and  deposed  ministers  ? 

Answer — The  most  part  of  them  I  expect  were. 

Question — Had  all  tiiose  mini-'ters  composing  this  Synod,  formerly  belonged 
to  the  Associate  Synod  of  North  America? 

Answer — I  believe  they  had. 

Question  — Has  the  Associate  Synod  of  North  America  departed  from  their 
original  principles  professed  in  their  standard  ? 

Answer — I  look  upon  it  that  they  have  de])artcd  from  the  discipline  of  the 
church. 

Question — In  what  respect  have  they  departed? 

Answer — In  the  manner  of  their  proceeding  in  censuring  members. 

Question — Particularise  the  manner. 

Answer — It  has  been  generally  pointed  out  in  public  writings; — in  their 
hasty  manner  of  proceedings.  It  would  be  difficult  to  mention  all  the  instan- 
ces ;  memory  does  not  serve  me. 

Question — Mention  one  instance  of  departure  from  the  original  principles 
of  that  church? 

Answer — I  mention  the  hasty  manner  of  their  suspending  the  Rev.  Mr. 
Stalker.  They  begun  and  ended  the  matter  at  the  same  sedement  in  which 
they  took  it  up.  It  may  have  been  in  Hebron,  or  possibly  Salem,  I  cannot 
well  tell. 

Question — Did  Mr.  Stalker  appeal  from  this  decision  of  Presbytery  to  Synod? 

AnsW'er — I  cannot  tell  as  to  that — he  submitted  I  believe. 

Question — Do  you  know  of  any  departure  of  the  Associate  Synod  of  North 
America  from  the  standards  of  the  Church  ? 

Answer — What  respects  the  affairs  that  were  carried  from  here  to  Synod 
-and  they  confirming  w4iat  the  Presbyter)^  did.  I  have  not  attended  any  meet- 
ing of  Synod, 

Question — Do  you  intend  to  infer  from  Synod  having  confirmed  these  de- 
*:isions,  that  they  have  departed  from  their  standards? 

Answer — I  do. 

Question — Will  you  make  it  plain  how  and  in  what  manner  Synod  has  de- 
parted from  their  standards  ? 

Answer — When  Presbytery's  proceedings  were  irregular  and  Synod  confirm- 
^ed  those  proceedings,  they  certainly  participated  in  the  acts  of  Presbytery  ? 

Question — Is  this  the  only  instance  of  Synod's  departure,  that  you  know  of  ? 

Answer — There  was  at  thepro  renata  meeting.  Synod's  and  Presbytery's 
decisions  are  connected.  At  the  joro  re  nata  meeting  I  was  objected  to  as  par- 
tial No  proof  of  that  was  had.  There  was  mention  had,  that  I  only  attended 
\vhen  Dr.  B's  case  came  on.  I  was  appointed  to  preach  at  Cambridge,  by 
Presbytery.  I  attended  there  and  preached,  and  also  attended  Presbytery, 
and  that  was  no  instance  of  partiality.  Synod  confirmed  these  decisions  of 
Presbytery  and  thereby  participated  in  the  wrong. 

Question — Has  Dr.  B.  frequently  urged  you  to  attend  the  meetings  of  Pres- 
bytery, when  he  was  under  trial  ?  Mr.  Allen  of  counsel  for  Defendants,  object? 
to  this  question  on  the  ground,  that  it  is  irrelevant  and  immaterial  and  impropr 
er.  Which  objection  is  over-ruled  by  the  Examiner  and  the  answer  taken 
down. 

Answer — Never  that  I  recollect  of. 


209 

Question — Did  Mr,  Bullions  send  his  team  to  bring  you  to  the  pro  re  7mta 
meeting  ?  Mr.  Allen  of  counsel  for  Defendants  objects  to  this  question  on  the 
grounds  that  it  is  immaterial  and  irrelevant.  The  objected  is  over-ruled  by 
the  Examiner  and  the  answer  taken  down. 

Answer— I  dont  recollect,  I  went  down  the  Sabbath  before  the  meeting.  I 
<.lont  remember  how  1  went. 

Question — Did  you  attend  any  of  the  meetings  of  Presbytery,  since  the  year 
1S2S,  except  when  Dr.  B.  was  on  trial  ? 

Answer — Yes.     I  did  attend  several  meetings  after  that. 

Question— Did  you  object,  or  protest  and  appeal  against  your  exclusion  at 
iheprore  nafa  meeting  ?  Mr.  Allen  of  counsel  for  Defendants  objects  to  this 
question  on  the  grounds  that  it  is  irrelevant  and  immaterial.  The  Examiner 
over-rules  the  objection  and  receives  the  testimony. 

Answer — I  did  not  appeal  because  I  was  notable  to  attend  to  Synod,  the 
court  was  to  sit  over  the  mountains  at  that  time,  and  it  was  needless  to  appeal 
as  I  could  not  attend. 

Question- — Is  it  agreeable  to  the  Discipline  of  the  Associate  Church,  when 
ttvo  are  chargeable  with  the  same  ofi'ence  or  objection,  for  one  to  be  allowed  to 
vote  in  the  other's  case? 

Answer^ — I  never  heard  of  an  instance  of  it.  I  never  saw  such  a  resolution, 
there  may  be  peculiarities  different  in  each  one's  case.  They  should  be  taken 
in  two  resolutions. 

Question — If  they  had  been  put  in  two  resolutions,  would  it  have  been  law- 
ful for  each  to  vote  in  the  other's  case  ? 

Answer — Yes,  if  there  were  circumstantial  differences  between  them.  I 
dont  see  any  objection  there  could  be  had  to  taking  them  separately.  You 
could  not  say  they  were  exactly  similar  in  all  circumstances.  The  court  could 
not  know  whether  they  were  similar,  or  not,  till  there  was  a  trial,  and  the  one 
was  taken  up.  There  could  scarcely  ever  be  a  case  of  perfect  similarity. 
They  could  seldom  be  conjointly  engaged  in  the  same  wrong.  Mr.  Goodwil- 
lie  had  been  a  connection  of  Dr.  B.  but  the  bond  of  connection  had  been  di- 
vided. It  was  not  so  with  Mr.  Pringle.  Whatever  might  be  said  of  Mr.  Prin- 
gle  he  certainly  was  not  in  my  view  in  the  same  situation  with  Mr.  Goodwillie. 

Question— According  to  scripture,  is  the  bond  of  connection  between  broth- 
ers-in-law severed  by  death  ? 

Answer.' — I  certainly  think  so. 

Question — Do  you  intend  to  be  understood  that  Synod  have  only  departed 
from  their  principles  by  their  confirming  the  deeds  brought  before  them  from 
the  Presbytery  of  Cambridge? 

Answer — I  cannot  say  as  to  other  proceedings,  I  have  not  attended  Synod  in 
some  time.  In  confirming  the  deeds  of  inferior  courts  they  certainly  were 
partakers. 

Question — Did  you  attend  the  meeting  of  the  Presbytery  of  Vermont,  at  the 
time  that  Presbytery  restored  Dr.  B  ? 

Answer — I  did. 

Question — According  to  the  principles  of  the  Associate  Church,  has  one 
Presbytery  jurisdiction  over  the  members  of  another? 

Answer — No,  I  think  they  have  not. 

Question — Do  you  know  from  having  seen  the  minutes  of  Synod  of  1838, 
or  otherwise,  that  Dr.  B.  was  referred  back  to  the  Presbytery  of  Cambridge 
for  further  dealing? 

Answer — I  dont  recollect  vi^hether  I  have  seen  the  minutes  of  Synod  or  not. 
Exhibit  B,  on  part  of  Complainants,  is  now  shown  to  the  witness,  and  he  now 
27 


210 

says  that  from  the  minutes  in  that  Exhibit,  it  appears  he  was  so  referred  back. 

Question — According  to  this  decision  of  Synod,  was  he  still  under  the  juris- 
diction of  the  Presbytery  of  Cambridge  ? 

Answer — He  was  deposed  ;  his  sentence  confirmed,  and  I  think  he  was  at 
liberty  to  dispose  of  himself  as  he  saw  fit. 

Question — Is  deposition  the  highest  censure  in  the  Church,  when  accom- 
panied with  the  lesser  sentence  of  excommunication  ? 

Answer — I  dont  know.  I  am  somewhat  doubtful  whether  there  are  two 
sorts  of  excommunication.     Dr.  Owen  says  there  is  but  one. 

Question — According  to  the  principles  of  the  Associate  Church,  is  there 
two,  a  greater  and  a  less  ? 

Answer — Yes. 

Question — Is  a  man  still,  according  to  the  principles  of  the  Associate  Church, 
under  its  care,  although  under  the  lesser  sentence  of  excommunication  ? 

Answer — If  a  man  is  deposed  and  sees  no  way  of  an  equitable  dealing  with 
him  he  may  withdraw  himself. 

Complainants  objects  to  this  answer  as  not  responsive  to  the  question. 

Question — According  to  the  principles  of  the  Associate  Church,  do  they 
hold  any  under  censure  by  the  lesser  sentence  of  excommunication,  as  still 
under  a  course  of  discipline,  until  the  higher  sentence  of  excommunication  is 
inflicted  upon  them  ? 

Answer — I  think  the  Synod  was  wrong  in  referring  a  case  carried  from  this 
Presbytery  by  the  parties,  and  Dr.  B.  could  expect  no  equitable  dealings,  and 
he  was  justified  in  withdrawing  himself. 

Objected  to  as  not  responsive  to  the  question  by  Complainants. 

Question — I  ask  you  respecting  the  principles  of  the  Church  without  refer- 
ence to  any  particular  case,  whether  an  individual  under  the  lesser  sentence 
of  excommunication  is  not  still  considered  a  member  under  censure,  and  is  he 
still  accountable  to  the  Church  for  further  dealings  ?  Mr.  Allen  of  counsel 
for  Defendants  objects  to  this  question  on  the  ground  that  it  is  irrelevant  and 
immaterial,  and  as  once  in  substance  asked  and  answered.  Which  objection 
is  over-ruled  by  the  examiner  and  the  answer  taken  down. 

Answer — He  may  in  certain  respects  be  considered  as  under  them,  but  un- 
der particular  circumstances,  where  he  sees  he  can  have  no  justice  or  equity, 
he  may  disobey  and  withdraw  in  a  particular  instance. 

Question — You  say  you  were  present  at  the  meeting  of  the  Presbytery  of 
Vermont  when  Dr.  Bullions  was  restored,  did  he  confess  his  sin  and  submit  to 
a  rebuke?  Mr.  Allen  of  counsel  for  Defendants  objects  to  this  question  on 
the  ground  that  the  minutes  are  the  best  evidence,  and  should  be  produced. 
The  Complainants  offer  to  produce  the  report  of  the  Presbytery  of  Vermont, 
as  specified  on  page  18  of  Exhibit  A,  on  part  of  Complainants,  to  the  Synod, 
which  contains  a  statement  of  what  was  done  by  the  Presbytery  in  relation  to 
the  case  of  Dr.  B.,  which  is  the  only  extract  from  the  minutes  in  the  posses- 
sion of  Complainants,  or  to  which  they  have  access,  and  they  now  ask  for 
parole  evidence  to  prove  what  is  asked  in  the  question.  The  examiner  over- 
rules the  objection  of  Mr.  Allen  and  the  offer  of  Complainants,  and  takes  the 
answer  down. 

Answer — There  was  read  at  the  Presbytery  certain  articles  of  impeachment. 
They  were  read  by  Presbytery  to  Dr.  Bullions,  and  there  was  a  number  of 
them  that  were  not  thought  relevant  of  censure.  There  was  one  or  two  which 
the  Presbytery  thought,  if  true,  were  relevant  of  censure,  and  he  owned  and 
confessed  them,  and  was  rebuked  I  think. 
Question — Did  this  deed  of  the  Presbytery  of  Vermont,  restore  Dr.  Bullions 


211 

lo  the  fellowship  of  the  Associate  Church,  or  only  to  fellowship  with  that  Pres- 
bytery ? 

Answer — It  was  to  he  a  member  of  that   Presbytery  he  petitioned  for,  and 
a  member  of  the  Church.     He  petitioned  to  be  received  into  that  Presbytery 
as  a  member.     That  Presbytery  had  fellowship  with  the  Synod. 
This  answer  is  objected  to  as  not  responsive  to  the  question. 
Question — Was  this  deed  of  the  Presbytery  of  Vermont  restoring  Dr.  Bul- 
lions in  accordance  with  the  principles  of  the  Associate  Church  ? 

Answer — I  dont  know  as  I  could  give  any  answer  to  that.     The   Synod,  it 
seems,  were  dissatisfied  with  it,  and  whether  right  or  wrong  I  shall  not  say. 
Question — Did  you  ever  hear,  or  read  of  an  example  of  that  kind  before  ? 
Answer — I  would  give  an  instance  of  that  kind  in  the  case  of  one  McMil- 
lan, in  the  Presbyterian  Church. 
Question — Is  there  one  in  the  Associate  Church  ? 
Answer — I  know  of  no  such  instance  in  the  Associate  Church. 
Question — Did  you  act  as  a  member  of  the  Presbytery  of  Vermont  on  the 
occasion  when  Dr.  Bullions  was  restored  ? 

Answer — I  was  received  as  a  correspondent  member,  but  took  little  part  in 
the  matter. 

Question — Do  you  recollect  how  long  it  is  since  you  attended  a  meeting  of 
the  Associate  Synod  of  North  America  ? 

Answer — I  think  it  was  in  the  year  1824  or  1S25,  at  Philadelphia.     It  was 
at  the  time  Dr.  Bullions  was  in  Canada. 

ARCH.  WHYTE. 
Sworn,  cross-examined  and  sub-  ) 
scribed,  this  16th  day  of  Sept.,  > 
in  the  year  1842,  before  me,      ) 

JAMES  GIBSON,  Examiner  in  Chancery. 


EXHIBITS 

IN  THIS  CAUSE,  PRODUCED  ON  THE  PART  OF  THE  COMPLAIN- 
ANTS, AND  MARKED  BY  THE  EXAMINER, 
JAMES  GIBSON,  ESQ. 

"  EXHIBIT  A." 
"  Printed  minutes  of  the  Synod  of  North  America,  for  the  year  1839."  (Prov- 
ed, fol.  5  of  the  deposition  of  Thomas  Goodwillie.) 

"EXHBIT  B." 

"  Printed  minutes  of  Synod  of  North  America,  for  the  year  1838."     (Prov- 
ed, fol.  63  of  the  deposition  of  Rev.  Jno.  G.  Smart.) 

"EXHIBIT  C." 

"Collections  and  observations  methodized  by  Steuartof  "  Perdivan,"  "Abroafh 
Edition,"  "  1802."  (Proved,  fol.  67  of  the  deposition  of  Rev.  John  G.  Smart.) 
In  the  testimony  this  book  is  commonly  referred  to  by  calling  it  "Perdivan" 
or  "  Perdivan's  Collections,"  or  "  Steuart's  Collections." 


212 

"EXHIBIT  D." 
"  Printed  minutes  of  the   Synod  of  North  America,    fur  the  year  1840." 
(Proved,  fol.  i)7  of  the  deposition  of  Ecv.  John  G.  Smart.) 

"EXHIBIT  E." 

"  The  declaration  and  testimony,  fifth  edition,  Albany,  printed  by  Webster 
and  Wood,  1S2S."  (Proved,  fol.  Ill  of  the  deposition  of  John  G.  j Smart.) 
Tliis  book  is  commonly  referred  to  in  the  depositions  by  calling  it  the  "  Testi- 
mony." 

"  EXHIBIT  F." 

"  Gib's  Display  of  the  rise  of  the  Secession  Church."  (Proved,  fol.  122  of 
the  deposition  of  John  G.  Smart.) 

"EXHIBIT  G." 

"  The  Westminster  confession  of  faith."  (Proved,  fol.  123  of  the  deposi- 
tion of  Rev.  Jno.  G.  Smart.) 

"  EXHIBIT  H." 

"  Anonymous  letter,"  addressed  to  "Rev.  A.  Gordon,  James  P.  Milliar*  and 
D.  Gordon."     (Proved,  fol.  26  of  the  deposition  of  Rev  David  Gordon)  and  is 
as  follows : — 
"Rev.  A.  Gordon,  James  P.  Milliar,  A.  Anderson  and  D.  Gordon. 

Gentleman: — I  perceive  that  you  have  been  again,  as  members  of  the  Asso- 
ciate Pby.  of  Cambridge,  at  your  old  maneuvering  and  censured  your  brother 
Rev.  D.  Stalker,  for  stating  that  a  certain  member  of  your  Pby.  had  tamfrt?red 
with  two  members  of  the  Session  of  Cambridge,  promising  aid  to  them  if  they 
would  form  a  party  in  the  congregation  against  their  Pastor  ;  and  Dr.  Bullions 
for  stating  that  he  had  heard  and  believed  said  report.  Let  it  be  distinctly  un- 
derstood that  it  was  not  known  when  you  commenced  process  against  your 
brethren,  who  the  Elders  tampered  with  were,  and  that  Dr.  Bullions  stated  that 
he  had  believed  that  several  members  of  the  Pby.  of  Cam.  had  tampered  with 
three  if  not  five  of  his  elders.  You  have  not  even  shewn  that  any  two  elders 
of  the  Session  of  Cam.  were  not  tampered  with,  for  they  have  not  all  been 
examined  before  you.  And  notwithstanding  your  dccesion  against  your  breth- 
ren, I  stand  now  prepared  to  shew  that  more  than  one  member  of  yours  Pby. 
have  actually  tampered  with  several  members  of  the  Session  of  Cambridge  to 
turn  them  against  their  Pastor,  the  Rev.  Dr.  Bullions.  In  confirmation  of  this 
I  divide  my  proofs  into  two  classes  Presumptive  and  Positive. 

1st.  The  presumptive  proofs  in  confirmation  of  the  charge  of  tampering. 

1st  A  Pby.  that  will  pass  a  member  without  censure,  after  being  charged 
with  beastly  intoxication,  and  substantially  confessing  it,  because  they  needed 
his  services  against  a  Co-presbyter,  are  altogether  capable  of  tampering  them- 
selves against  that  Co-presbyter.  Look  into  your  minutes  and  you  will  find  with- 
out going  very  far  back,  a  charge  of  beastly  intoxication  against  one  of  your 
members  and  that  member  substantially  confessing  it.  And  to  this  hour  you 
have  never  censured  him  and  for  this  reason  that  his  services  were  wanted 
against  Dr.  Bullions. 

2nd.  A  minister,  who  openly  slanders  a  brother  by  imputing  to  him  ac- 
tions he  never  committed,  and  charges  hini  with  Jesuitism  will  be  forward  to 
use  all  his  influence,  to  turn  him  out  of  the  Secession  Church.  But  you  all 
know  that  the  Rev.  A.  Gordon,  has  charged  in  the  Religious  Monitor,  Dr.  Bul- 
lions with  Jesuitism  and  with  filling  the  pews  of  his  meeting  house  with   the 


*  This  word  and  others  following  are  printed  as  spelt  in  the  original. 


213 

standartis  of  another  churcli,  and  yet   you  have  never  called  him  to  an  ac- 
count. 

3rd.  A  minister  who  is  himself  unsound  in  faith,  and  given  to  lying  will  will 
naturally  endeavour  to  ruin  a  brother  and  is  perfectly  capable  of  it.  But  true 
it  is  that  the  Rev.  J.  P.  Millar  one  of  your  selves,  preached  at  Hebron  in  pres- 
ence of  Francis  Pringle,  Rev.  D.  Stalker  and  others  assisting-  at  a  Sacramen- 
tal occasion  there,  "That  Christ  purchased  the  love  of  God."  And  at  North 
Arg-yle  on  a  late  Sacramental  ocasion  "  That  Christ  makes  with  sinners  in 
the  Lord's  supper  the  covenant."  In  proof  of  this  you  are  refered  to  Rev.  D. 
Stalker,  Dr.  Bullions  and  others  that  heard  him.  Of  lying  I  give  one  speci- 
men. He  declared  before  the  session  of  Cambridge  and  elsewhere,  that  he 
came  by  the  authority  and  appointment  of  Pby.  to  preach  in  Cambridge,  when 
Dr.  Bullions  was  first  suspended  by  Pby,  And  before  Synod  and  the  commis- 
sioner he  positively  denied  that  he  had  any  such  appointment.  Proof.  The 
members  of  Cambridge  session,  his  own  letter  to  them,  and  the  members  of 
the  Synod  and  commission. 

4th.  A  minister  must  be  altogether  capable  and  prone  to  tamper  against 
a  brother  who  commits  the  mean  and  ungentlemanly  trick  of  using  a  paper 
against  him,  put  into  his  hands  for  a  different  purpose.  But  such  was  the  trick 
of  A.  Anderson,  in  reference  to  a  paper  put  in  to  his  hand  of  protest  against 
the  deeds  of  the  commission. 

5th,  A  minister  that  charges  publicly  a  brother  with  being  without  godly 
sincerity  or  christian  honesty  and  guilty  of  wilful  misrepresentation,  and  after- 
wards denies  having  done  it,  will  doubtless  use  any  endeavours  to  turn  such  an 
one  out  of  the  Church.  But  the  Rev.  D.  Gordon  did  bring  the  above  charge 
against  Dr.  Bullions,  in  a  paper  read  by  him  in  Hebron,  before  the  Associate 
Pby.  of  Cam.  and  afterwards  positively  denied  it.  Witnesses  Rev.  D.  Stal- 
ker, A.  Bullions,  and  others  they  can  name  to  you. 

2nd.     Positive  proofs  of  the  above  charge, 

1st.  James  Lourie  has  positively  sworn  before  you,  thai  he  regarded  him- 
self as  tampered  with,  by  one  or  more  members  of  the  Pby  of  Cambridge, 

2nd.  John  Dobbin  Elder,  when  examined  before  you,  swore  that  he  himself 
and  he  beleived  several  others,  had  been  spoken  by  members  of  Pby.  stating 
to  them  that  if  he  and  they  did  not  take  Dr.  Bullion's  part,  the  Pby.  would  easily 
manage  him,  or  words  to  the  same  amount.  Let  John  Robertson,  now  a  mem- 
ber of  your  court,  examine  said  Dobbin,  and  perhaps  more  will  appear  to  the 
same  purpose. 

3rd.  John  Robertson  has  positively  stated  to  one  or  more  members  of  the 
session  of  Cambridge,  that  he  did  consider  himself  as  tampered  with,  by  a 
member  or  members  of  Cam.  Pby.  Moreover  the  said  John  Robertson,  at  a 
meeting  of  Pby.  in  Hebron  and  elsewhere,  did  state  some  of  you,  that  if  you 
called  him  to  testify,  that  his  testimony  would  be  black.  That  he  had  tried  it 
five  times  on  paper,  and  that  it  always  came  out  ill  against  a  member  or  mem- 
bers of  your  Pby.  And  was  not  this  the  real  reason  why  you  declined  taking 
his  testimony? 

4th,  Moreover  Edward  Small,  another  member  of  the  session  of  Cam.  has 
been  and  still  is  regarded  as  able  to  furnish  additional  proof  in  confirmation 
of  the  charge  of  tampering.  Let  the  above  proofs,  presumptive  and  positive 
be  impartially  considered  and  they  will  warrant  the  conclusion  that  after  all 
your  management,  they  confirm  the  report  of  tampering,  and  also  so  deep- 
ly implicate  some  of  you  that  they  require  confession  or  self  vindication.  Did 
aJicy  lie  against  either  Mr.  Stalker,  or  Dr.  Bullions,  they  would  speedily  be 


L>I1 

called  up  A  Friknd  to  impartiality" 

"N.  B.  Let  Mr.  D.  Cionloii  have  a  rcadino-  of  the  above." 
The  following  are  the  endorsements  on  the  back  of  this  paper: — 

CO      "Franklinville"  "pd  25." 

»-^ 

-c  "Rev.  a.  Bullions  D.  D. 


Ol 


Cambridge, 

N.  Y." 


"  EXHIBIT  I." 

"  AnonATHious  letter,"  addressed  to  "  Rev.  A.    Gordon,  James  P.  Millar,  A. 
Anderson  and   D.  Gordon."     (Proved,   fol.  28  of  the  deposition  of  Rev.  D. 
Gordon,)  and  is  as  follows  : — 
"  Rev.  A.  Gordon,  James  P.  Millar,  A.  Anderson  and  D.  Gordon : 

Gentlemen— I  perceive  that  you  have  been  again  as  members  of  the  Asso- 
ciate Pb}^  of  Cambridge,  at  your  old  maneuvering  and  censured  your  brother, 
Rev.  D.  Stalker  for  stating,  that  a  certain  member  of  your  Pby  had  tampered 
with  tAvo  members  of  the  Session  of  Cambridge  promising  aid  to  them  if  they 
would  form  a  party  in  the  congregation  against  their  pastor,  and  Dr.  Bullions, 
for  stating  that  he  had  heard  and  believed  said  report.  Let  it  be  distinctly 
understood  that  it  was  not  known,  when  you  commenced  process  against  your 
brothern  who  the  elders  tampered  with  were,  and  that  Dr.  Bullions  stated  that 
he  had  believed  that  several  members  of  the  Pby  of  Cambridge  had  tamper- 
ed with  three  if  not  five  of  his  elders.  You  have  not  even  shewn  that  any 
two  elders  of  the  Session  of  Cambridge  were  not  tampered  with,  for  they 
have  not  all  been  examined  before  you  and  notwithstanding  your  decision 
against  3'our  brothern,  I  stand  now  prepared  to  show  that  more  than  one  mem- 
ber of  your  Pby  have  actually  tampered  with  several  members  of  the  session 
of  Cambridge  to  turn  them  against  their  Pastor  the  Rev.  Dr.  Bullions.  In 
confirmation  of  this  I  divide  my  proofs  into  two  classes.  Presumptive  and  Pos- 
itive. 

1st.  The  Presumptive  proof  in  confirmation  of  the  charge  of  tampering. 

1st.  A  Pby  that  will  pass  a  member  without  censure  after  being  charged 
with  beastly  intoxication  and  substantially  confessing  it,  because  they  needed 
his  services  against  a  co-presbyter  are  altogether  capable  of  tampering  them- 
selves against  that  co-presbyter.  Look  into  your  minutes  and  you  will  find 
without  going  very  far  back  a  charge  of  beastly  intoxication,  against  one  of 
your  members,  and  that  member  substantially  confessing  it,  and  to  this  hour 
you  have  never  censured  him,  and  for  this  reason  that  his  services  were  wan- 
ted against  Dr.  Bullions. 

2nd.  A  minister  who  openly  slanders  a  brother  by  imputing  to  him  actions 
he  never  committed  and  charges  him  with  Jesuitism  will  be  forward  to  use  all 
his  influence  to  turn  him  out  of  the  secession  Church.  But  you  know  that 
the  Rev.  A.  Gordon  has  charged,  in  the  Religious  Monitor  Dr.  Bullions  with 
Jesuitism  and  with  filling  the  pews  of  his  meeting  house,  with  the  standards 
of  another  church,  and  yet  you  have  never  called  him  to  an  account. 

Srd.  A  minister  who  himself  is  unsound  in  the  faith,  and  given  to  lying, 
will  naturally  endeavor  to  ruin  a  brother,  and. is  perfectly  capable  of  it.  But 
true  it  is  that  the  Rev.  J.  P.  Millar,  one  of  yotirselves  preached  at  Hebron,  in 


215 

presence  of  Francis  Pringle  and  Rev.  D.  Stalker  and  others,  assisting  at  a  sa- 
cramental occasion  there,  "that  Christ  purchased  the  love  of  God/'  and  at 
North  Argyle  on  a  late  sacramental  occasion  "  that  Christ  makes  with  sinners, 
in  the  Lord's  supper  the  covenant."  In  proof  of  this  you  are  referred  to  Rev. 
D.  Stalker,  Dr.  Bullions,  and  others  that  heard  him.  Of  lying  I  give  one 
specimen.  He  declared  before  the  session  of  C  anibridge  and  elsewhere,  that 
he  came  by  the  authority  and  appointment  of  Pby  to  preach  in  Cambrido-e 
when  Dr.  Bullions  was  first  suspended  by  Pby,  and  before  Synod  and  the 
commission,  he  positively  denied  that  he  had  any  such  appointment.  Proof  the 
members  of  Cambridge  Session.  His  own  letter  to  them  and  the  minutes 
of  the  Synod  and  commission. 

4th.  A  minister  must  be  altogether  capable  and  prone  to  tamper  against  a 
brother  who  commits  the  mean  and  ungentiemanly  trick  of  using  a  paper 
against  him,  put  into  his  hands  for  a  different  purpose.  But  such  was  the 
trick  of  A.  Anderson  in  reference  to  a  paper  put  into  his  hand  of  protests 
against  the  deeds  of  the  commission. 

5th.  A  minister  that  charges  publicly  a  brother  with  being  without  Godly 
smcerity  and  christian  homesty  and  guilty  of  walful  misrepresentation,  and  af- 
terwards denies  having  done  it,  will  doubtless  use  any  endeavours  to  turn  such 
an  one  out  of  the  church.  But  the  Rev.  D.  Gordon  did  bring  the  above  charge 
against  Dr.  Bullions  in  a  paper  read  by  him  in  Hebron,  before  the  Associate 
Pby  of  Cambridge  and  afterwards  positively  denied  it.  Witnesses,  D.  Stalk- 
er, A.  Bullions  and  others  they  can  name  to  you. 

2d.  Positive  proofs  of  the  above  charge.  ' 

1st.  James  Lourie  has  positively  sworn  before  you  that  he  regarded  himself 
as  tampered  with  by  one  or  more  members  of  the  Pby  of  Cambridge. 

2nd.  John  Dobbin,  Elder,  when  examined  before  you,  swore  that  he  him- 
self and  he  believed  several  others  had  been  spoken  to  by  members  of  Pby, 
stating,  to  them,  that  if  he  and  they  did  not  take  Dr.  Bullions'  part,  the  Pby 
would  easily  manage  him  or  words  to  the  same  amount.  Let  John  Robertson, 
now  a  member  of  your  court,  examine  said  Dobbin  and  perhaps  more  will  ap- 
pear to  the  same  purpose. 

3d.  John  Robertson  has  positively  stated  to  one  or  more  members  of  the 
session  of  Cambridge,  that  he  did  consider  himself  as  tampered  Avith  by  a 
member  or  members  of  of  Cam.  Pby.  Moreover  the  said  John  Robertson  at  a 
meeting  of  Pby  in  Hebron  and  elsewhere  did  state  to  some  of  you,  that  if 
you  called  him  to  testify,  that  his  testimony  would  be  black.  That  he  had 
tried  it  five  times  on  paper  and  that  it  always  came  out  ill  against  a  member 
or  members  of  Pby.  And  was  not  this  the  real  reason  why  you  declined  ta- 
king his  testimony  ? 

4th.  Moreover  Edward  Small  another  member  of  the  session  of  Cambridge 
has  been  and  still  is  regarded  as  able  to  furnish  additional  proof  in  confirma- 
tion of  the  charge  of  tampering. 

Let  the  above  proofs  presumptive  and  positive  be  impartially  considered, 
and  they  will  warrant  the  conclusion,  that  after  all  your  management,  they 
confirm  the  report  of  tampering,  and  also  so  deeply  implicate  some  of  you, 
that  they  require  confession  or  self-vindication.  Did  they  lie  against  either 
Rev.  D.  Stalker  or  Dr.  Bullions,  they  would  speedily  be  called  up. 

A  Friend  to  Impartiality. 

"  N.  B.  A  copy  of  this  will  be  handed  to  the  Rev.  G.  Mars  that  he  may 

know  how  things  are  done  in  Cam.  Pby,  with  a  request  to  communicate  it  to 

his  brethren.     Another  will  be  handed  to  some  Presbyterian  in  this  County, 

and  you  are  respectfully  requested  to  furnish  a  copy  to  your  brethren  in  Pby." 


2Uy 


The  following  arc  the  cndor^oineiits  on  the  hack  this  paper. 


i>  ". 

CO   (X) 

V 

CO  CO 

^ 

•-'  (/) 

f 

11  \ 

C         r- 

rt    T" 

l< 

>  f^ 

v. 

\ 

M    6 

> 

-    ^ 

10 


"  Kcv.  JaMJ;s    p.    iMlLLAK, 

South  Argylc, 

N.  Y." 


"EXHIBIT  K." 

"An  extract  from  the  miriTitcs  of  the  Presbytery  of  Cambridge,"  being  there* 
oliUions  of  Presbytery,  on  the  request  by  James  Lourie,  one  of  the  Committee 
of  Cambridge  congregation  for  instructions  as  to  their  dealing  with  Dr.  Bul- 
lions. (Proved,  fol.  73  of  the  deposition  of  Ecv.  D.  Gordon,"  and  is  as  follows  : 

Extracts  from  the  minutes  of  Presbytery,  Salem,  June  27th,  1838. 

"Mr.  James  Lourie,  from  the  committee  of  the  Congregation  of  Cambridge, 
requested  instructions  from  Presbytery^  with  respect  to  their  dealii}gs  with  Dr. 
Bullions.  In  connection  with  this  request  these  resolutions  were  proposed, 
discussed  and  unanimously  were  adopted,  viz  : — 

1st.  "KesoIved,That  Dr.  Bullions  cannot  be  restored  to  his  former  standing 
with  this  Presbytery  without  fullsubmission  to  the  decisions  of  Presbytery  and 
Synod  in  his  case.  2d,. that  Presbytery  cannot  recognise  any  of  the  members  of 
Cambridge  Congregation,  who  adhere  to  Dr.  Bullions  in  his  non-submission, 
as  in  full  communion  and  good  standing  with  us,  or  entitled  to  the  privileges 
of  church  membership  as  long  as  they  continue  in  their  present  course,  3d.  that 
those  of  the  Associate  Congregation  of  Cambridge,  who  do  not  adhere  to  nor 
support  Dr.  Bullions  in  his  non-submission,  but  who  adhere  to  the  Presbytery 
and  Synod  in  their  decisions  in  his  case,  be  and  hereby  are  recognized  as  the 
organized  Associate  Congregation  of  Cambridge." 

(Signed,)  A.  ANDERSON,  Pby.  Clk. 

"EXHIBIT  L." 

An  "extract  from  the  minutes  of  the  session  of  the  Associate  Congregation 
of  Cambridge."  (Proved,  fol.  77  of  the  deposition  of  Rev.  D.  Gordon,)  and 
is  as  folloAvs  : — 

"Monday,  Cambridge,  19  August,  1839. 

Pursuant  to  notice  session  met,  was  constituted  with  prayer  by  the  Rev,  A. 
Anderson,  moderator;  elders  present,  Edward  Cook,  Edward  Small,  John  Rob- 
ertson, and  William  Mcr4eoch  ;  read  and  approved  the  minutes  of  last  meeting. 
The  committee  appointed  to  deal  with  adherents  to  the  ministry  of  Dr.  Alex. 
Bullions  reported.  In  case  of  Peter  Hill  that  he  gave  no  satisfaction  and  said 
that  if  Dr.  Bullions  was  gone  he  himself  would  not  be  under  the  Associate 
Pby  of  Cambridge,  In  the  case  of  James  T,  Green,  1st,  that  he  said  that  he 
was  determined  to  attend  on  the  ministry  of  Dr.  Bullions  as  he  found  fault 
with  the  Pby,  and  although  he  found  fault  with  Dr.  Bullions,  yet  he  thought 
his  deposition  unjust.  In  case  of  James  Shiland — that  he  said  that  he  would 
still  attend  on  the  ministry  of  Dr.  Bullions,  giving  similar  reasons  with  those 
given  by  Mr.  Green,  And  much  dealing  was  used  with  them  to  convince 
them  of  the  sinfulness  of  their  course  but  to  no  effect  apparent.  In  the  case 
of  Robert  McClelland— that  he  said  that  he  did  not  acknowledge  John  Rob- 


217 

ertson,  who  was  the  person  dealing  with  him  as  an  ekler  under  whose  care  he 
was,  nor  the  session  of  which  he  was  a  member,  and  he  refused  to  have  con- 
versation with  him  in  that  character,  in  the  case  of  James  CoiUter,  that  he  an- 
swered in  substance  the  same  as  James  T.  Green,  1st,  and  James  Shiland  as 
stated  above.  In  the  case  of  John  Shiland  Jr.,  that  he  stated  in  substance,  the 
same  thing  as  James  Shiland.  All  the  above  named  men  claim  to  be  trustees 
except  John  Shiland,  Jr.  It  was  agreed  to  make  a  formal  charge  against  the 
above,  viz:  Peter  Hill,  James  T.  Green,  1st,  James  Shiland,  Robert  McClel- 
land and  James  Coulter,  and  cite  them  to  attend  and  answer  to  it  before  ses- 
sion. The  charge  it  was  agreed  should  be  as  follows,  viz:  Mr •  You  are  here- 
by charged  with  attending  on  the  ministrations  of  Dr.  Alexander  Bullions  since 
his  deposition  by  the  Ass.  Pby.  of  Cambridge,  and  the  confirmation  of  this 
sentence  by  the  Ass.  Synod  in  which  you  are  guilty  of  contemning  the  order 
and  the  ordinances  of  Christ  in  his  Church,  countenancing  and  encouraging 
Dr.  Alex.  Bullions  in  his  sin  and  seism,  keeping  up  a  seism  in  the  visible  body 
of  Christ,  and  neglecting  the  ordinances  as  dispensed  under  the  care  of  the 
Associate  Presbytery  of  Cambridge,  according  to  the  rules  and  order  of  the 
Associate  Church.  Witness  to  the  above  charges,  are  Peter  McArthur,  James 
Hoy,  James  Arnot,  John  Robertson,  Edward  Small  and  William  McGeoch. 
Agreed  that  Session  meet  on  Sept.  9  at  3  o'clock,  P.  M.  at  the  house  of  Ed- 
ward Cook,  and  that  the  above  named  Peter  Hill,  James  T.  Green,  1st,  James 
Shiland,  Robert  McClelland  and  James  Coulter,  be  cited  there  to  appear  and 
answer  to  said  charge.  William  McGeoch  was  appointed  to  draw  off  and  serve 
copies  of  the  charge,  with  citations.     Minutes  were  read  and  approved. 

Closed  with  prayer." 
"  Sept.  9th  1839,  session  met  pursuant  to  adjournment,  at  the  house  of  Ed- 
ward Cook,  and  was  constituted  with  prayer  by  the  Rev.  David  Gordon  Mod- 
erator, Elders  present  Edward  Cook,  Edward  Small,  John  Robertson  and 
William  McGeoch,  read  the  minutes  of  former  meeting  August  19,  which  af- 
ter correction  was  adopted.  On  enquiry  it  appeared  that  the  appointment  to 
serve  a  copy  of  the  charge  against  the  men  claiming  to  be  trustees,  Peter  Hill, 
James  T.  Green,  1st,  James  Shiland,  Robert  McClelland  and  James  Coulter, 
had  been  fulfilled  with  respect  to  all  of  them,  accompanied  with  citations,  ex- 
cept James  Shiland,  as  not  any  of  the  above  named  persons  have  appeared  it 
was  agreed  that  James  Shiland  be  now  cited  for  the  first  time,  and  the  others 
for  the  second  time  on  said  charge.  Agreed  that  next  meeting  be  in  this  place, 
on  the  20th  inst.,  at  3  o'clock,  P.  M.     Closed  with  prayer." 

"  At  the  house  of  Edward  Cook,  Sept.  20th,  1839,  Session  met  pursuant  to 
adjournment,  constituted  with  prayer  by  the  Rev.  David  Gordon,  Moderator; 
Elders  present,  Edward  Cook,  Edward  Small,  John  Robertson  and  William  Mc- 
Geoch, minutes  of  last  meeting  now  read,  corrected  and  approved.  On  in- 
quiry it  appeared  that  the  citations  on  the  charge  against  Peter  Hill,  James 
T.  Green,  1st,  James  Shiland,  Robert  McClelland,  and  James  Coulter,  had  all 
been  duly  served  according  to  the  agreement  at  last  meeting.  As  none  of  the 
persons  cited  have  yet  appeared,  it  was  agreed  that  James  Shiland  be  now 
cited  for  the  second  time  with  certification.  Agreed  that  next  meeting  be  in 
this  place.  October  1st,  at  2  o'clock,  P.  M.,  minutes  were  read  and  approved. 
Closed  with  prayer." 

"  House  of  Edward  Cook,  Oct.  1st,  1839,  Session  met  pursuant  to  adjourn- 
ment and  was  constituted  with  prayer  by  Rev.  D.  Gordon,  Moderator;  Mem- 
bers present,  William  McGeoch,  Edward  Cook,  John  Robertson  ;  minutes  of 
last  meeting  were  read  and  approved.  On  inquiry  it  appeared  that  the  cita- 
tions had  all  been  duly  served  on  the  men  claiming  to  be  Trustees  as  had 
28 


218 

been  appointed.  E.  Small  appeared  and  took  his  scat.  As  none  of  the  per- 
sons cited  have  yet  appeared,  Session  resolved  to  proceed  to  issue  the  cases  of 
those  who  have  been  tliree  times  cited.  The  charge  was  then  read  and  con- 
sidered as  to  its  relevancy,  (see  minutes  page  20th )  it  was  unanimously 
judged  relevant.     It  was  agreed  to  take  up  their  cases  separately. 

Took  up  the  case  of  Peter  Hill ;  heard  the  testimony  of  John  Eobertson,  viz  : 
That  "  1  asked  him  if  he  intended  to  deny  his  attending  on  the  minis- 
try of  Dr.  Bullions  ?  he  said  he  did  not  deny  it,  he  did  attend  on  it.  He  has 
not  attended  with  us  since  Dr.  Bullions's  deposition,  except  once  when  Thos. 
Goodwiilie  preached  in  the  brick  church  on  his  return  from  Synod,  1838. 
I  have  also  repeatedly  seen  him  among  the  people  assembled  at  the  time  and 
place  of  worship,  when  and  where  Dr.  Bullions  preaches.  E.  Small  testified 
that  he  heard  the  said  Peter  Hill  say  if  Dr.  Bullions  were  gone,  he  himself 
would  not  be  under  the  Associate  Presbytery ;  he  had  also  repeatedly  seen 
said  Peter  Hill  among  those  assembled  to  hear  Dr.  Bullions  on  the  Sabbath ; 
and  he  does  not  attend  with  us.  Moreover,  that  the  said  Peter  Hill  was  the 
mover  of  the  resolution  to  have  Dr.  Bullions  preach  at  a  meeting  held  after 
the  Doctor's  deposition.  It  was  decided  unanimously  that  the  charge  is  proved. 

Took  up  the  case  of  J.  T.  Green,  1st  ;  heard  the  testimony  of  Wm.  Mc. 
Geoch  and  John  Eobertson,  who  had  been  a  committee  to  deal  with  him,  viz : 
That,  "  he  said  he  was  determined  to  attend  on  the  ministry  of  Dr.  Bullions. 
John  Eobertson  farther  states  that  he  has  repeatedly  seen  him  with  those 
meeting  to  hear  Dr.  Bullions  on  the  Sabbath,  and  he  does  not  attend  with  us. 
It  was  unanimously  decided  that  the  charge  is  proved. 

Took  up  the  case  of  James  Coulter.  Heard  the  testimony  of  the  commit- 
tee who  were  appointed  to  deal  with  him,  viz : — William  McGeoch  and  John 
Eobertson;  that  he  acknowledged  he  did  attend  on'Dr.  B's  ministry  and  mani- 
fested his  purpose  still  to  do  so.  John  Eobertson  further  states  that  he  has  re- 
peatedly seen  him  with  those  assembled  to  hear  Dr.  B.  on  the  Sabbath ;  and^ 
he  does  not  attend  with  us.  It  was  decided  unanimously  that  the  charge  is 
proved. 

Took  up  the  case  of  Eobert  McClellan.  Heard  the  testimony  of  John  Eob- 
ertson ;  that  said  E.  Mc.  has  two  or  three  times  acknowledged  to  me  his  atten- 
ding on  Dr.  B's  ministry.  I  have  also  repeatedly  seen  him  with  those  assem- 
bled to  hear  the  Dr.  on  Sabbaths,  and  he  does  not  attend  with  us.  E.  Small  tes- 
tified that  said  Eobert  has  stated  he  never  could  be  under  the  Presb'y  ;  that 
he  has  also  seen  said  Eobert  with  those  assembled  to  attend  on  the  Dr's  min- 
istry. The  Eeport  of  the  committee  on  his  case,  Aug.  19.  was  read  in  testi- 
mony ;  it  was  decided  unanimously  that  the  charge  is  proved.  Took  into  con- 
sideration how  far  these  men  are  guilty  of  contumacy.  It  was  unanimously 
decided  that  they  are  morally  guilty  of  contumacy  in  their  not  attending  on 
session  according  to  the  citations  given,  and  in  their  neglect  to  send  any  excuse 
for  their  absence.  And  in  the  cases  of  Peter  Hill,  James  Coulter  and  Eobert 
McClelland,  in  their  disowning  the  authority  of  session,  and  the  com- 
mittee sent  to  deal  with  them.  It  was  therefore  unanimously  resolved  that 
they  and  each  of  them,  viz  :  P.  Hill,  Jas.  T.  Green,  1st,  James  Coulter  and  Eobert 
McClelland,  be  and  they  hereby  are  suspended  from  the  communion  of  the 
church  till  they  give  evidence  of  repentance  and  return  to  their  duty. 

Agreed  to  meet  next  in  this  place  on  Monday  the  7th  inst,  at  2  o'clock  P.  M. 

It  was  unanimously  agreed  to  cite  James  Shiland,  for  the  third  time  with  cer- 
tification, that  if  he  do  not  appear  at  the  next  meeting,  Session  will  proceed 
in  his  absence.     Minutes  were  read  and  approved.     Closed  with  prayer. 

House  of  Edward  Cook,  Oct.  7.  1839.     Session  met  and  was  constituted  with 


219 

prayer  by  Rev,  D.  Gordon,  moderator.  All  the  members  present.  Minutes  of 
last  meeting  were  read  and  approved.  On  inquiry  it  appeared  that  James 
Shiland  had  been  duly  cited  as  had  been  appointed.  He  not  having  yet  ap- 
peared, Session  resolved  now  to  proceed  to  issue  his  case.  The  charge  was 
read  and  having  been  unanimously  decided  relevant,  took  the  testimony  of  Pe- 
ter McArthur,  (See  testimony.)  viz;  that  he  has  repeatedly  seen  James  Shi- 
land with  those  assembling  on  the  Sabbath  at  the  brick  church  to  hear  Dr.  B.  al- 
so entering  the  church  and  also  coming  out  of  it,  and  that  he  has  never  atten- 
ded the  Associate  Cong,  of  Cambridge  any  time  that  he  (Peter)  has  been  pres- 
€nt. 

PETER  McARTHUR. 

James  Arnot  testifies  substantially  the  same  as  Peter  McArthur,  and  further 
that  in  conversation  James  Shiland  has  justified  to  him  the  couse  of  Dr.  B. 
and  his  own  conduct  in  attending  his  ministry. 

JAIME  S  ARNOTT. 

James  Hoy  testifies,  that  he  has  more  than  once  seen  James  Shiland  with 
those  assembling  for  public  worship  under  the  ministry  of  Dr.  B,  That  he 
James  Hoy,  has  been  present  in  the  Associate  Cong,  of  Cambridge  every  time 
they  have  met  for  worship  since  Dr.  B's  deposition  and  he  has  never  seen 
James  Shiland  there. 

JAI\IES  HOY. 

The  report  of  the  committee  Aug.  19,  was  read  in  evidence  Oct.  7,  1839. 

It  was  unanimously  decided  that  the  charge  is  proved.  Sf^ssion  farther 
judged  that  he  is  guilty  of  contumacy  in  his  neglecting  all  their  citations  and 
in  sending  no  excuse  for  his  non  attendence,  it  was  therefore  unanimously  re- 
solved that  he  be  suspended  from  the  fellowship  of  the  Church,  till  he  give 
evidence  of  repentance  and  return  to  his  duty,  and  he  is  hereby  suspended. 
It  was  unanimously  resolved  that  public  notice  be  givenof  session's  decision  in 
the  cases  of  all  the  men  claiming  to  be  trustees,  on  the  first  Sabbath  that  there 
is  supply  of  preaching. 

The  following  preamble  and  resolutions  were  adopted,  viz:  Although  this 
session  do  consider  that  by  the  decision  of  the  Associate  Presbytery  of  Cam- 
bridge bearing  date  Salem  June  27th,  lS3S,and  by  adeed  of  this  session  July  31st 
1838,  acquiescing  in  said  deed  of  the  Presbytery  and  moreover  striking  off 
from  their  communicant  roll  the  names  effected  by  said  deeds.  All  who  claim- 
ing to  belong  to  the  Associate  Cong,  of  Cambridge,  do  adhere  to  Dr.  A.  Bul- 
lions in  his  non-submission  to  Pby.  and  Synod,  were  suspended  from  the  com- 
munion of  the  Associate  Church.  Yet  to  be  more  explicit  and  more  expressly 
agreeable  to  the  rules  of  the  church,  therefore.  Resolved,  that  according  to  a 
deed  of  the  Associate  Pby.  of  Cambridge,  June  27th,  1838,  all  the  former  mem- 
bers of  the  Associate  Congregation  of  Cambridge,  and  all  who  now  claim  to 
be  members,  who  adhere  to  Dr.  A.  Bullions  in  his  disobedience  to  Pby.  and 
Synod,  are  hereby  suspended  from  the  communion  of  the  Associate  Church  till 
they  have  a  trial  of  their  case  individually. 

And  that  the  following  persons  with  all  others,  formerly  members  of  the  As- 
sociate Congregation  of  Cambridge,  or  now  claiming  to  be  members  who  are 
adhering  to  Dr.  A.  Bullions  in  his  non-submission  to  Pby.  and  Synod  are  on 
fama  clamosa  and  on  account  of  direct  evidence  accordingly  suspended,  viz: — 

Mrs.  Mary  Bullions,  Alexander  McDowell,  Isabella  McDowell,  William  Mc- 
Morris,  Nancy  Archer,  James  Stevenson,  jr.,  Christopher  Willson,  Miss  Patty 
Willson,  Mrs.  Sarah  Warner,  William  McAuley,  Mary  Santos,  Ells  McDoual, 


220 

Jane  McDoual,  Mrs.  Jane  Adams,  Mrs.  Abigal  Creen,  Mrs.  Gennet  Lovvrie, 
Mary  Lowrie,  Mrs.  Jane  Shiland,  Mrs.  Ann  Alexander,  Mrs.  Eliza  Mc- 
Clellan,  James  Coulter,  2d,  JMrs.  Nanny  Conlter,  Gcorirc  W.  Maxwell,  Mrs. 
Margaret  Maxwell,  John  VV^ric^lit,  John  Wright,  jr.,  Daniel  McFarliii,  Miss 
Jane  McFavland,  Dimoau  F(Tf;uson,  Miss  Mary  Fcrn'uson,  Miss  Pefrj^y  Coul- 
ter, Miss  BetSL'V  TiH'ord,  Betsev  Tilford,  Mrs.  jannet  Maxwell,  Mrs.  Elizabeth 
Ma.vwell,  Ann  J.  Maxwc-ll,  Old  Walter  Maxwell,  Old  John  McFarland,  Mrs. 
Elcy  IMcFarland,  William  j\IcFarland,  Maro-arel  McFarland,  Thos.  McLean, 
Mrs.  Eachel  McLean,  Mary  McLean,  John  Ferine,  Mrs.  Mary  Ferine,  William 
Green,  Mrs.  Jannet  Green,  Thomas  I.  Green,  Mrs.  Sarah  Green,  Robert 
Green,  Mrs.  Margaret  Green,  Samuel  Grahams,  Nancy  Grahams,  Hannah 
Grahams,  Margaret  Grahams,  Jane  Grahams,  Thomas  Grahams,  Mrs.  Eliza- 
beth Grahams,  Mrs  Sarah  McDoual,  Samuel  McDoual,  James  Woods,  Mrs. 
Ann  Woods,  Nancey  Cackeyc,  William  Stewart,  Mrs.  Sarah  Stewart,  Charles 
Clark,  Mrs.  Bershaba  Chirk,  Mrs.  Elizabeth  Clark,  James  T.  Green,  2d,  Mrs. 
Ann  S.  Green,  Mrs.  Hannah  S.  Green,  Mrs.  Nancy  Hill.  Mrs.  Charity  Hill, 
Mrs.  Martha  McLean,  Mrs.  Ann  Ketchum,  EstlierFrasier,  Mrs.  Peggy  Green, 
Mrs.  Eleanor  Gilmore,  Eobert  Doeg,  Mrs.  Hannah  Doeg,  Peter  Walsh,  Mrs. 
Almira  Walsh,  John  Shiland,  jr.,  Mrs.  Mary  Shiland,  Mrs.  Elizabeth  Shiland, 
Thomas  Shiland,  Mrs.  Eliza  Shiland,  David  Shiland,  Mrs.  Eliza  Shiland,  Ann 
Shiland,  Mrs.  Mary  Larmoth,  Mrs.  Nancy  Skimerhorn,  Andrew  Skellie,  Mrs. 
Jane  Skellie,  Thos.  Skellie,  Mrs.  Jannet  Skellie,  Old  John  Skellie,  Mrs.  Han- 
nah Skellie,  Jane  Skellie,  David  Robertson,  William  Shiland,  Mrs.  Mary  Shiland, 
Mrs.  Margaret  Edie.  Mary  Edie  and  Ann  Edie,  Margaret  Edie,  Jannet  Santos, 
JohnL.  Esman,  Mrs.  Eliza  Esman,  Mary  P.  Robertson,  Mrs.  Isabella  Mitchell, 
JosephArcheVjMrs.  Martha  Archer,George  W.Robertson, Mrs.  Betsey  Robertson, 
George  Robertson,  Mrs.  Nancy  Robertson,  Mrs.  Ann  Mayhugh,  Old  John  Gra- 
hams, Mrs.  Sarah  Grahams,Mrs.  Jannet  Grey,  Samuel  Thompson,  Mrs.  Margaret 
Thompson,  Mary  Thompson,  Mrs.  Mary  Billings,  Mrs.  Elizabeth  Robertson, 
Mrs.  Jane  Robertson,  Mrs.  ChristianMcLellan,  Mrs.  Mary  Hyde,  Francis  Tilford 
and  wife  Phebe,  Robert  Miller,  Mrs.  Eliza  Miller,  Mrs.  Jane  Coulter,  James 
Coulter,  jr.,  Eleanor  Coulter,  Maria  Coulter,  Mrs.  Catharine  Coulter,  Elizabeth 
Archer,  Mrs.  Margaret  Skinner,  Mrs.  Rachel  McLellan,  Mary  Artimage,  Mar- 
garet Armitage,  Mrs.  Sarah  McLellan,  William  McLellan,  Jannet  McLellan, 
Ann  McLellan,  Mrs.  Phebe  McGeoch,  William  Shipherd,  Mrs.  Margaret  Ship- 
herd,  John  Jamison,  Old  Margaret  Archer,  John  Wickes  and  wife,  black. — 
154  in  number. 

Notice  of  suspension  of  the  men  claiming  to  be  the  trustees  who  adhere  to  Dr. 
A.  Bullions. 

Notice  is  hereby  given  that  Peter  Hill,  James  T.  Green  1st,  James  Shiland, 
Robert  M'Lellan  and  James  Coulter,having  been  proved  guilty  of  attending  on  Dr. 
Bullion's  ministeryin  his  disorderly  course  and  of  neglecting  pviblic  ordinances 
in  this  congregation  of  which  they  were  members  and  also  of  contumacy  in 
their  disregarding  the  citations  given  them  to  appear  and  answer  before  ses- 
sion to  these  charges  have  been  suspended  from  the  communion  of  the  church 
till  they  give  evidence  of  repentance  and  return  to  their  duty.  By  order  of 
session.  D.  GORDON,  Moderator, 

WM.  M'GEOCH,  Clerk. 
Cambridge,  Oct.  7,  1839." 

"EXHIBIT  M." 
"The  first  declinature  of  Dr.  Bullions."     (Proved,  fol.  32  of  Rev.  A.  An- 
derson's deposition,)  and  is  as  follows  : — 

"  The  subscriber  while  fully  satisfied  that  whatever  a  lawful  court  of  Christ 


221 

binds  on  earth  is  bound  in  heaven,  and  ought  to  be  submitted  to,  is  equally 
satisfied  that  its  acts  when  subversive  of  truth  and  of  the  order  and  discipline 
and  peace  of  the  church  are  null  and  void  ;  and  that  submission  to  them  is  im- 
moral and  of  dangerous  tendency.  Persuaded  that  of  the  latter  description 
are  certain  acts  passed  by  the  minority  of  the  ministerial  members  of  the  Pres- 
bytery of  Cambridge,  at  Argyle,  Cambridge  and  Salem,  in  October,  Novem- 
ber and  December  last,  respecting  himself,  such  as  voting  him  censurable  and 
suspending  him  from  the  exercise  of  the  ministry,  and  the  communion  of  the 
church,  the  subscriber  renews  his  protests  against  said  acts  as  unpresbyterial 
and  unconstitutional,  and  declines  all  submission,  not  to  the  Associate  Presby- 
tery of  Cambridge,  but  to  the  minority  claiming  to  be  that  Presbytery  and  ap- 
peals from  them  to  the  Associate  Synod  of  North  America  to  meet  at  Phil- 
adelphia in  Maj^,  1S3S ;  and  among  other  reasons  for  this  declinature  he  as- 
signs the  following : — 

1st.  That  the  said  minority  claiming  to  be  the  Associate  Presbytery  of  Cam- 
bridge acted  unconstitutionally  in  proceeding  to  censure  the  undersigned,  after 
his  protest  and  appeal  had  been  given  in  and  admitted  against  the  correctness 
of  their  minute  recording  certain  expressions  imputed  to  him,  and  voted  cen- 
surable. According  to  all  the  books  of  presbyterial  discipline  a  protest  and 
appeal  taken  from  the  deed  of  and  inferior  to  a  superior  court  sists  all  further 
proceedure  in  the  premises  till  that  appeal  is  decided  ;  but  in  opposition  to  this 
the  party  claiming  to  be  the  Presbytery  of  Cambridge,  proceeded  after  the 
protest  and  appeal  against  the  correctness  of  their  minutes  had  been  taken  and 
admitted  to  inflict  censure  on  him.  This  of  course  rendered  this  and  all 
their  subsequent  deeds  in  his  case  invalid  ;  and  so  they  ought  not  to  be  sub- 
mitted to.  If  it  be  pretended  that  the  refusal  of  his  first  protest  altered  the 
case,  suffice  it  to  remark  that  the  proceedure  of  rejecting  a  first  protest,  and 
admitting  a  protest  against  that  rejection  is  a  measure  that  savors  of  litigious- 
ness,  and  is  hardly  practically  known  but  in  the  Associate  Church,  and  no 
more  justifies  a  court  in  proceeding  farther  after  the  rejection  of  the  first  pro- 
test, than  on  its  admission.  Both  measures  equally  arrest  proceedure,  and 
bring  up  the  whole  matter  before  the  superior  judicatory.  And  this  unconsti- 
tutional deed  is  aggravated  by  several  connected  circumstances  Avhich  ought 
to  be  adverted  to  in  order  to  form  a  correct  estimate  of  it.  Let  it  be  noticed 
that  the  expression  imputed  to  the  undersigned  and  voted  censurable,  are  that 
"Dr.  Bullions  insinuated  that  some  member  or  members  present  were  not  fit  to 
sit  in  any  court,  and  that  they  might  censure  him  till  they  were  tired."  Now 
what  is  the  evidence  that  he  ever  used  these  expressions,  especially  the  first  ? 
The  minute  does  not  affirm  that  he  asserted  this  but  insinuated  it;  which  im- 
plies that  these  were  not  his  words.  The  subscriber  would  further  state  that 
his  impression  is  that  certain  members  of  court  have  admitted  that  these  were 
not  his  words  and  he  presumes  that  no  two  members  of  court  will  affirm  un- 
der oath  that  they  are  his  identical  words.  Farther,  a  dissent  is  admitted 
against  the  correctness  of  the  minutes,  and  when  testimony  was  offered  to  prove 
that  the  language,  especially  the  first  expression  imputed  to  him,  was  not  his 
language,  it  was  refused.  Moreover  the  subscriber  has  in  a  paper  given  in  to 
court,  solemnly  declared  that  the  language,  especially  the  first  expression  im- 
puted to  him  does  not  convey  his  meaning — that  he  regards  it  as  improper  and 
disclaims  it.  Granting  that  the  alleged  expression  had  been  actually  used, 
ought  not  this  disavowal  have  been  satisfactory  to  every  christian  and  honora- 
ble man  ?  It  seems  rather  hard  for  a  speaker  to  have  a  construction  put  upon 
his  language  when  he  disavows  both  the  language  and  the  meaning  put  upon 
it,  and  is  made  responsible  for  the  meaning  that  others  attach  to  it. 


222 

2nd.  The  party  claiming  to  be  the  court,  besides  its  unconstitutional  deeds 
became  so  mutilated  by  the  unjust  exclusion  of  a  majority  of  the  ministerial 
members  of  the  associate  Presbytery  of  Cambridge  Irom  their  scats  and  vo- 
tinf>-  in  his  case,  that  the  undersigned  cannot  acdnowledgc  the  fragment  that 
remained  as  that  Presbytery.  The  minutes  attest  that  the  Rev.  Messrs. 
Whyte,  Stalker,  Goodwillic  and  Pringle  were  all  refused  a  seat  and  a  vote  in 
his  case.  In  confirmation  of  this  he  appeals  to  their  minutes  and  requires  their 
production  at  the  ensuing  meeting  of  Synod.  The  community  would  never 
tolerate  a  minority  in  a  civil  court  after  silencing  a  majority  of  its  constitution- 
al members  to  discharge  all  the  functions  of  that  court,  and  far  less  ought  a 
minority  to  be  submitted  to  in  an  ecclesiastical  court  after  unjustly  depriving 
a  majority  of  their  constitutional  members  of  their  just  rights.  For  these  and 
other  reasons  which  maybe  given  in,  in  due  time  the  undersigned  renews  and 
continues  all  his  former  protests  against  and  appeals  from  the  above  enumerated 
deeds  of  the  minority  of  the  ministerial  members  of  the  Presbytery  of  Cam- 
brido-e  claiming  to  be  that  Presbytery  and  acting  as  such ;  and  declines  their 
assured  authority  and  holds  all  their  past  acts  in  his  case  as  null  and  void;  and 
will  hold  null  and  void  all  future  acts  they  may  pass  afTecting  his  ministerial 
standino-,  interfering  with  his  labors  or  intruding  on  his  privileges,  and  appeals 
to  the  Associate  Synod  of  North  America  to  meet  at  Philadelphia  May,  1838. 

Cambridge, 6,  1838. 

ALEX.  BULLIONS." 

N.  B.    The  name  of  the  month  I  cannot  make  out  from  the  original." 

"EXHIBIT  N." 

"The  second  declinature  of  Dr.  Bullions."  (Proved,  fol.  35 of  Rev.  A.  An- 
derson's deposition)  and  is  as  follows : — 

"Cambridge,  April  2d,  1838. 

Dear  Brother, — I  have  received  your  citation  to  attend  a  meeting  of  the 
Associate  Presbytery  of  Cambridge  to  meet  at  Argyle  on  the  2nd  Tuesday 
inst.,  to  appear  on  a  new  trial  before  them.  Though  cherishing  I  trust  all  due 
respect  for  Church  courts,  permit  me  to  state  to  you  that  I  decline  complying 
with  the  citation  for  the  follov/ing  reasons. 

1st  That  I  rega.d  it  as  irregular  and  unpresbyterian  to  commence  a  new 
process  against  any  while  former  process  is  in  dependence,  this  is  the  case  at 
least  in  civil  courts  on  criminal  trials  when  they  proceed  civilly  and  we  have 
an  instance  in  another  Presbytery  at  present  of  a  member  refused  his  seat 
(as  I  understood)  on  the  alleged  ground  that  however  he  conducted  he  could 
not  be  prosecuted  because  already  under  process. 

2iid.  I  have  declined  submission  to  the  minority  of  ministerial  members 
claiming  to  be  the  Presbytery  of  Cambridge  and  acting  as  such,  and  appealed 
the  case  to  Synod  and  therefore  cannot  consistently  attend  where  this  minority 
constitutes  the  court.  These  reasons  I  hope  will  prove  satisfactory  in  justify- 
ing me  in  respectfully  declining  present  attendance  till  the  declinature  taken 
is  decided,  and  which,  is  hereby  renewed. 

Respectfully  yours, 

ALEX.  BULLIONS." 

"EXHIBIT  0." 

"  A  narrative  of  the  proceedings  of  the  Associate  Presbytery  of  Cambridge, 
which  issued  in  the  deposition  of  the  Rev.  A.  Bullions,  D.  D.— Albany — prin- 
ted by  Hoffman  &  White— 1838."  (Proved,  fol.  81,  of  the  Rev.  A.Anderson's 
deposition. 


223 

''EXHIBIT  P." 

"  Minutes  of  the  Session  of  the  Congregation  of  Cam'oridge,  shewing  the 
excommunication  of  the  elders  adhering  to  Dr.  Bullions."  (Proved,  fol.  S9  of 
the  Eev.  A.  Anderson's  deposition,  and  is  as  follows : — 

"  Jackson,  Nov.  26,  IS3S. 
Session  met  at  the  house  of  William  McGeoch  and  was  constituted  with 
prayer  by  the  Eev.  Abrm.  Anderson,  moderator.  Elders  present,  Edward 
Small,  John  Eobertson  and  William  McGeoch  ;  the  following  preamble  and 
resolutions  were  proposed  considered  and  adopted,  viz:  Whereas  some  of  the 
former  members  of  the  Ass.  Session  of  Cambridge,  viz  :  John  McClellan,  John 
Shiland,  George  Lourie,  James  Lourie  and  George  I.  Maxwell  have  as  is  be- 
lieved attended  on  the  ministrations  of  Dr.  Alex.  Bullions  since  his  deposition 
by  the  Ass.  Pby.  of  Cambridge,  and  the  confirmation  of  the  said  sentence  by 
the  Ass.  Synod  of  N.  America  and  thereby  are  contemning  the  ordinances  of 
Christ  in  his  church  and  supporting  and  encouraging  Dr.  A.  Bullions  in  his 
sin  and  schism  and  are  neglecting  the  ordinances  as  dispensed  according  to 
the  rules  of  the  Ass.  Church  and  under  the  care  of  the  Ass.  Presbytery  of 
Cambridge.  And,  Whereas  this  session  has  acquiesced  in  the  decision  of  the 
Pby.  declaring  that  they  cannot  recognise  those  who  adhere  to  Dr.  Bullions  as 
in  communion  or  in  good  standing  with  the  Associate  church.  And  whereas 
this  session  have  adopted  measures  of  dealing  with  those  who  so  adhere  to 
Dr.  Bullions  in  his  present  course. 

Therefore  Eesolved,  That  this  Session  do  hold  the  above  named  elders,  viz: 
John  McClellan,  John  Shiland,  George  Lourie,  James  Lourie  and  George  I. 
Maxwell  as  suspended  from  the  exercise  of  their  Office  as  ruling  elders  and 
from  the  communion  of  the  church,  until  farther  dealing  be  had  with  them 
in  order  to  reclaim  them  or  till  trial  of  their  case  be  held. 

Ees.  2d.  That  intimation  of  this  resolution  be  made  to  said  members. 
Ees.  3d.  That  a  committee  or  committees  be  appointed  to  wait  on  the  above 
named  memberi  to  inform  them  of  their  suspension,  to  deal  with  them  sever- 
ally in  order  to  reclaim  them  and  to  cite  them  to  appear  before   Session  for 
further  dealing. 

Ees.  4th.  That  in  case  the  said  members  refuse  to  be  reclaimed  or  to  appear 
before  session  according  to  invitation,  the  said  committee  or  committees  forth- 
with serve  them  with  a  copy  of  the  charges  against  them  and  with  a  citation 
to  appear  before  session  for  trial. 

Eesolved,  That  Messrs.  William  McGeoch,  Edward  Small  and  John  Eob- 
ertson be  a  committee  to  carry  into  effect  the  above  resolutions,  any  two  of 
whom  on  their  own  arrangements  may  deal  with  the  above  named  members 
severally.  The  following  charge  to  be  delivered  to  the  members  of  Session 
severally  above  named;  in  case  of  their  non-compliance  Avith  the  invitation  of 
Session  was  proposed  and  adopted,  viz  :  You  are  hereby  charged  with  atten-- 
ding  on  the  ministrations  of  Dr.  Alex.  Bullions  since  his  deposition  by  the- 
Ass.  Pby.  of  Cambridge  and  the  confirmation  of  this  sentence  by  the  Asso-- 
ciate  Synod  in  which  you  are  guilty  of  contemning  the  order  and  the  ordinan- 
ces of  Christ  in  his  church,  countenancing  and  encouraging  Dr.  Alex.  Bul- 
lions in  his  sin  and  schism,  keeping  up  a  schism  in  the  visible  body  of  Christ, > 
and  neglecting  the  ordinances  as  dispensed  under  the  care  of  the  Associate  Pby. 
of  Cambridge  according  to  the  rules  and  order  of  the  Ass.  Church.  The  Session 
to  meet  at  Mr.  Edward  Small's  on  Monday  the  17th  of  December  next  ensuing 
at  1  o'clock  P.  M.     Closed  with  prayer. 

WILLIAM  McGEOCH,  Session  Clerk. 
The  witnesses  to  the  above  charge,  Wm.  BIcGeoch,  Edward  Small,  Johw 


221 

Kobertsoii,  Alex.  White,  Thomas  Shelby,  Win.  Kobcrtsoii  of  Troy,  and  Thom- 
as Kobeitsoii  of  Troy,  Peter  JNlcGill,  Nancy  Miller,  Kobcrt  McArtbur,  Peter 
McArthur,  James  Hoy,  Peter  Hill,  James  Shilaiid,  Wm.  Shcpard,  Robert  Til- 
ford. 

Cambridge,  Dec.  17,  183S. 
Session  met  at  the  house  of  Mr.  Edward  Small  according  to  adjournment, 
was  constituted  with  prayer  by  the  Kev.  A.  Anderson,  moderator;  Members 
present,  John  Kobertsou,  Edward  Small  and  AVilliam  McGeoch,  read  the  min- 
utes of  the  last  meeting  which  were  approved.  The  committee  were  called 
upon  for  their  report,  which  given  in  substance,  is  as  follows  :  The  commit- 
tee appointed  to  deal  with  or  to  cite  the  former  elders  of  Camljridge,  who  are 
laid  under  suspension  for  dealing  or  for  trial  on  account  of  their  adherence  to 
Dr.  Bullions  in  liis  assumed  ministry  since  his  deposition,  reported  that  they 
had  attended  to  the  appointment,  dealt  with  those  elders  in  order  to  reclaim 
them,  but  without  success,  as  far  as  they  could  ascertain.  That  they  informed 
them  of  their  suspension,  and  delivered  to  them  severally  the  charge  made 
out  against  them  and  a  citation  to  appear  before  session  at  this  meeting  for 
trial.  It  is  nevertheless  true  that  only  one  of  the  committee  conversed  with 
John  Shiland,  and  only  one  of  them  at  a  time  with  James  Lourie.  It  was 
agreed  to  accept  the  report.  It  was  also  agreed  that  as  Peter  McArthur  and  Rob- 
ert McAithur  were  present  as  witnesses  their  statements  would  now  be  taken 
as  they  would  testify  on  oath ;  they  were  accordingly  called  and  gave  their 
statements  which  were  taken  in  writing.  None  of  the  elders  cited  to  appear 
to-day  attended.  It  was  agreed  that  the  next  meeting  of  session  be  at  Wil- 
liam McGeoch's  on  Monday  the24thinst.,  at  10  o'clock,  A.  M.  and  that  the  Rev. 
George  Hall  be  requested  to  moderate  in  case  the  present  moderator  do  not 
attend.  It  was  agreed  that  the  elders  before  cited  be  again  cited  to  appear  at 
next  meeting  before  the  session  for  trial  on  the  charge  already  put  into  their 
hands,  and  that  the  former  committee  cite  them.  It  was  resolved  that  as  Wil- 
liam McGeoch  was  at  a  former  meeting  appointed  as  elder  to  Pby.  but  the  min- 
ute omitted  he  be  continued  according  to  appointment.  Minutes  were  read 
and  approved.     Closed  with  prayer. 

WILLIAM  McGEOCH,  Session  Oerk. 
Jackson,  Monday,  December  24,  1838. 
Session  met  at  the  house  of  William  McGeoch  according  to  appoinment  : 
was  constituted  with  prayer  by  Rev.  George  Hall,  moderator  ;  elders  present, 
Edward  Small,  John  Robertson  and  Wm.  McGeoch.  The  minutes  of  the  for- 
mer meeting  were  read,  corrected  and  approved.  The  committee  appointed 
to  cite  the  elders  held  under  suspension  at  a  former  meeting,  reported  that 
they  had  discharged  the  duty  assigned  them.  Whereas  none  of  the  elders 
who  had  been  cited  the  second  time  appeared.  On  motion  resolved,  that  a 
third  citation  be  sent  to  the  elders  formerly  suspended,  with  a  notification  that 
in  case  they  do  not  attend,  the  session  will  proceed  to  try  their  case  as  if  they 
were  present ;  and  also  consider  how  far  they  are  guilty  of  contumacy.  On 
motion  resolved,  that  the  same  committee  be  appointed  to  serve  the  third  cita- 
tion, and  also  to  report  any  answers  from  any  or  all  of  the  elders  they  may 
think  proper.  On  motion  resolved,  that  the  next  meeting  of  session  be  held  at 
the  house  of  William  McGeoch  on  Monday  the  3lst  of  December,  1838,  at  10 
o'clock,  A.  M.  Resolved,  that  the  clerk  of  session  be  directed  to  issue  cita- 
tions for  any  or  all  of  those  witnesses  named  in  the  charges  as  the  session  may 
think  proper.  Resolved,  that  the  Rev.  A.  Anderson  be  requested  to  moderate  at 
the  next  meeting  of  session  ;  and  that  in  case  of  his  absence,  Rev.  George  M. 
Hall  be  requested  to  moderate.     Closed  with  prayer. 

WILLIAM  McGEOCH,   Session  Clerk. 


225 

Jackson,  Monday,  December  31,  1838. 

Session  met  at  the  house  of  William  McGeoch  was  constituted  with  prayer  by 
the  Rev.  A.  Anderson,  members  present  Edward  Small,  William  McGeoch,  and 
John  Robertson,  read  the  former  minutes  and  approved  them.  It  appeared  on 
inquiry  that  the  3rd  citation  with  certification  was  served  on  the  elders  under 
charge  before  session.  None  of  the  Elders  cited  appeared  and  the  session  re- 
solved that  they  would  now  issue  the  case.  The  charge  was  then  read  and* 
considered  Avith  regard  to  its  relevancy  and  unanimously  decided  relevant. 
Agreed  to  try  the  case  in  reference  to  the  members  charged  individually ;  took 
up  the  case  of  John  McClelland  read  testimony  in  the  case  given  by  Peter 
Mc Arthur  and  received  report  of  committee,  viz:  Wm.  McGeoch  and  Edward 
Small  who  had  been  appointed  to  deal  with  Mr.  McClellan  who  reported  that 
he  said  that  he  had  attended  on  the  ministry  of  Dr.  A.  Bullions  since  his  deposi- 
tion and  that  he  would  attend  and  that  though  men  had  taken  away  Dr.  Bullions 
license  the  head  of  the  Church  had  not.  It  was  decided  that  the  charge  is 
proved.  Next  took  up  the  case  of  John  Shiland  ;  Received  the  report  of  the 
Committee.  Edward  Small  appointed  to  deal  with  Mr.  Shiland  who  reported 
that  said  John  Shiland  said  that  he  would  attend  upon  the  ministry  of  Dr.  A. 
Bullions  and  that  said  John  Shiland,  had  at  another  time  invited  him  said  E. 
Small  to  attend  with  them  on  the  ministry  of  Dr.  Bullions.  John  Robertson 
also  stated  that  in  last  September,  John  Shiland  invited  him  to  attend  on  the 
Ministry  of  Dr.  Bullions  with  them  including  himself  and  said  that  he  was  at- 
tending the  ministry  of  Dr.  Bullions  and  intended  to  attend  until  next  meeting  of 
Synod.  It  was  decided  that  the  charge  is  proved.  Took  up  the  case  of  George 
Lowrie,  read  the  testimony  in  the  case  by  Peter  McArthur,  Robert  McArthur, 
and  received  the  report  of  committee.  Messrs.  Edward  Small  and  W^illiam 
McGeoch  who  reported  that  George  Lourie  said  that  he  intended  to  follow  the 
course  he  was  going  till  he  found  a  better,,  or  words  to  that  efTect.  John  Rob- 
ertson also  stated  that  George  Lourie  in  several  conversations  with  him  since 
Dr.  Bullions  was  deposed,  conveyed  the  idea  that  he  was  attending  the  minis- 
try of  Dr.  Bullions,  and  intended  to  attend  as  long  as  he  believed  on  the  reve- 
lations. It  was  decided  that  the  charge  was  proved.  Took  up  the  case  of 
James  Lourie;  read  the  testimony  of  Robert  McArthur  and  received  the  report 
of  the  committee,  William  McGeoch,  who  reported  that  James  Lowrie  said  that 
he  had  attended  but  one  day  for  some  weeks  on  Dr.  Bullions'  Ministry.  John 
Robertson  also  stated  that  when  acting  as  a  committee  to  deal  with  James  Lou- 
rie he  said  James  Lourie  said  that  he  had  made  up  his  mind  nearly  that  he 
would  attend  neither  party  till  he  received  a  letter  from  Rev.  Samuel  McAr- 
thur, then  he  made  up  his  mind  and  attended  the  ministry  of  Dr.  Bullions;  de- 
cided that  the  charge  is  proved. 

Took  up  the  case  of  George  I.  Maxwell,  Received  the  report.  Edward 
Small,  and  William  McGeoch  as  a  committee  to  deal  with  George  I.  Maxwell 
who  reported  that  he  said  that  he  had  attended  on  the  ministry  of  Dr.  Bullions 
since  his  deposition  and  intended  to  attend,  as  soon  as  he  was  able.  It  was  decided 
that  the  charge  is  proved.  It  was  then  considered  how  far  the  Elders  charged 
were  guilty  of  contumacy  severally.  It  was  decided  that  they  are  severally 
guilty  of  contumacy  in  as  far  as  they  did  not  attend  any  of  the  meetings  of 
session  to  which  they  were  cited,  and  also  as  they  did  not  give  any  reason  of 
their  absence  or  assign  any  cause,  except  that  James  Lourie  gave  an  excuse  in 
one  case.  Accordingly  session  unanimously  decided  that  the  above  named  el- 
ders, viz:  John  McClellan,  John  Shiland,  George  Lourie,  James  Lourie,  and 
George  I.  Maxwell  be  suspended  and  they  hereby  are  severally  suspended  from 
the  exercise  of  their  office  as  elders  and  from  the  communion  of  the  Church. 
29 


226 

till   they  repent.     It  was  moreover  resolved  that  this  decree,  viz:     That  the 
charges  .igainst  those  elders  severally  was  foinid  relevant  and  proved,  and  that 
they  were  severally  found  guilty  of  contumacy  and  suspended  from  the  exer- 
cise of  their  office,  and  the  communion  of  the  Church  bo  intimated  to  them. 
Minutes  were  read  and  approved.     Closed  with  prayer. 

WILLIAM  McGEOCH,  Session  Clerk:' 

"EXHIBIT  Q." 

"  Minutes  of  the  Associate  Presbytery  of  Cambridge,  commencing  with  the 
Argyle  meeting,  Oct.  4,  1837."  (Proved,  fol.  126,  of  the  Rev.  A.  Anderson's 
Deposition,)  and  is  as  follows : 

"  South  Argyle,  Wedn.,  Oct.  4th,  1837. 

Presbytery  met  according  to  appointment,  and  constituted  with  prayer  by 
Mr.  Miller,  Moderator.  Members  present,  Messrs.  Stalker,  Bullions,  D.  D., 
A.  Gordon,  Miller,  D.  Gordon,  ministers:  Benj.  Skellie,  John  Robertson,  John 
Henry,  John  T.  Law,  George  Boyd,  ruling  elders.  Mr.  D.  Gordon  was  ap- 
pointed Clerk  pro  tem:'     "  Mr.  Anderson  appeared  and  took  his  seat." 

Oct.  5th,  9  A.  M.  Pby  met  constituted  with  prayer  by  Mr.  A.  Gordon 
Moderator.  Members  present  as  yesterday,  except  Mr.  Anderson  and  J.  Rob- 
ertson." "John  Robertson  appeared  and  took  his  seat.  Dr.  Bullions  having 
in  his  remarks,  insinuated  that  some  member  or  members  present  were  unfit 
to  sit  in  any  court,  it  was  on  motion  resolved  that  he  be  required  to  give  the 
names.  A  question  arising  respecting  the  minutes,  the  Moderator  decided 
that  it  was  out  of  order.  An  appeal  was  taken  and  sustained.  The  minute 
was  then  filled  up  as  follows,  viz :  Dr.  Bullions  refused  to  give  names  by  de- 
nying his  former  words,  and  in  his  remarks  said,  "  Pby  might  censure  him  till 
they  were  tired."  John  Robertson  and  Benj.  Skellie  entered  their  dissent  for 
reasons  to  be  given  in  ;  the  Clerk  was  appointed  to  answer  them.  Dr.  Bul- 
lions, for  disobedience  to  the  Moderator  was  deprived  of  the  privilege  of  de- 
bate for  this  sitting.  It  Avas  on  motion  resolved  that  Dr.  Bullions  be  censured 
for  contempt  of  court  in  the  above  slanderous  insinuations  and  expressions. 
Messrs.  Skellie  and  Robertson,  because  not  being  present  at  the  commence- 
ment, desired  it  to  be  marked  that  they  had  not  clearness  to  vote,  and  Mr. 
Stalker,  because  he  did  not  distinctly  hear.  On  motion  resolved  that  the  cen- 
sure due  to  Dr.  Bullions  be  a  rebuke.  Messrs.  Robertson,  Skellie  and  Stalk- 
er not  voting  for  reasons  before  given.  The  execution  of  the  resolution  to 
rebuke  was  postponed  till  the  sentence  imposing  silence  be  removed.  Mr. 
Anderson  appeared  and  took  his  seat.  Dr.  Bullions  entered  his  protest  against 
the  minute  recording  his  expression,  and  appealed.  Protest  not  admitted. 
Dr.  Bullions  protested  against  not  amitting  his  protest,  which  protest  was  ad- 
mitted. Messrs.  D.  Gordon  and  Miller,  a  committee  to  answer  reasons  of  pro- 
test.    Dr.  Bullions  craved  extracts. 

Resolved,  That  as  Mr.  Skellie  disagreed  with  the  minutes  stating  Dr.  Bul- 
lions' exceptionable  expression  he  be  required  to  give  in  his  statement  of  that 
expression  in  writing.  Mr.  Skellie  gave  in  the  following  statement,  viz  :  That 
Dr.  Bullions  did  not  say  the  members  were  not  fit  to  sit  in  any  court,  but  some 
were  not  fit  to  sit  in  this  court.  BENJAMIN  SKELLIE. 

"  After  recess  it  was  agreed  that  the  silence  imposed  on  Dr.  Bullions  be  re- 
moved. Proceeded  to  inflict  the  censure  voted  on  Dr.  Bullions.  He  refused 
to  submit,  and  protested  and  appealed  to  Synod.  Protest  not  admitted.  Dr. 
Bullions  protested  against  the  rejection  of  his  protest,  protest  admitted. 
Messrs.  D.  Gordon  and  Miller  were  appointed  a  committee  to  answer  reasons 
of  protest.     (At  the  next  regular  meeting  of  Pby.,  Feb.  7th,  1838,  at  Hebron, 


227 

when  the  minutes  of  Oct.  5th  were  read,  it  was  agreed  to  fill  up  tlie  minutes 
as  follows,  viz :  As  Pby  were  about  proceeding  to  pass  the  sentence  of  sus- 
pension, Dr.  Bullions  arose  and  proposed  to  give  what  he  said  in  the  morning, 
or  the  substance  of  it  instead  of  what  was  recorded  in  the  minutes  as  his  ex- 
pression, and  in  substance  said,  That  what  he  said  in  the  morning  was,  That 
if  reports  were  true,  for  which  he  would  refer  Pby  to  the  Rev.  George  Mairs, 
and  the  Rev.  Peter  Gordon,  there  were  four  members  of  this  Pby  not  fit  to  sit 
in  this  court,  stating  moreover,  that  these  four  were  Messrs.  A,  Gordon,  D. 
Gordon,  Miller  and  Anderson,  and  that  what  was  charged  against  them  was 
error  in  doctrine  and  immorality  in  practice.)  It  was  then  on  motion  resolved 
that  Dr.  Bullions  be  suspended  from  the  exercise  of  his  ministry  and  commu- 
nion of  the  Church  for  contumacy,  till  he  give  evidence  of  repentance  (voted 
6  to  2)  a  member  having  led  in  prayer  before  the  vote.  Dr.  Bullions  protested 
against  this  decision  and  appealed,  protest  not  admitted.  He  protested  against 
the  rejection  of  his  protest,  which  protest  was  admitted.  i\lr.  Anderson  was 
appointed  to  answer  reasons  of  protest.  Resolved,  That  the  Associate  Con- 
gregation of  Cambridge  be  informed  of  Pres'y's  decision  respecting  Dr.  Bul- 
lions and  that  if  they  wish  for  supplies  from  Presby.  they  may  apply  to  the 
committee  of  supplies."  "It  was  agreed  to  read  and  correct  the  minutes  in 
order  to  give  corrected  extracts.  Adjourned  till  to-morrow  morning.  Closed 
with  prayer. 

Oct.  6th,  9  A.  M.  Presby.  met,  and  constituted  with  prayer  by  the  Moder- 
ator. Members  present,  Messrs.  Stalker,  A.  Gordon,  Miller,  D.  Gordon,  minis- 
ters. John  Henry  and  Benj.  Skellie,  Elders."  "Geo.  Bold  appeared  and 
took  his  seat,  and  Wm.  Dobbin  instead  of  John  T.  Law.  Papers  being  cal- 
led for,  a  representation  by  Dr.  Bullions  was  given  in  and  referred  to  Messrs. 
Miller  and  Henry  as  a  committee  before  reading.  The  committee  reported 
against  the  present  reading  of  it.  It  was  therefore  on  motion  laid  on  the  ta- 
ble-" "  Mr.  Anderson  appeared  and  took  his  seat."  "A  paper  given  in  by 
Dr.  Bullions  having  been  verbally  reported  on  by  the  committee  to  whom  it 
had  been  referred,  was  recommitted  in  order  that  a  report  on  it  be  laid  before 
next  meeting  of  Presby." 

Cambridge,  Nov.  14th,  1837.  Presby.  met,  pro  re  nata,  according  to  a  call 
by  the  Moderator.  Members  present,  Messrs.  Whyte,  Stalker,  Bullions,  D. 
D.,  A  Gordon,  Anderson,  Goodwillie,  Miller,  Pringle.  D.  Gordon,  ministers. 
Benj.  Skellie,  John  Robertson,  G.  Bold,  Wm.  Galbraith,  John  Henry,  Wm. 
Henderson,  John  T.  Law,  Ruling  Elders.  The  Moderator  stated  that  he  had 
called  this  meeting  on  a  request  by  two  members,  made  on  the  petition  of  the 
Ass.  Congregation  of  Cambridge,  that  Presby.  might  take  into  consideration 
the  affairs  of  Dr.  Bullions  and  of  the  Congregation  of  Cambridge.  The  ex- 
cuses of  members  for  absence  from  some  meetings  of  Presby.  past  were  cal- 
led for.  Mr.  Whyte  gave  as  his  excuse  that  he  did  not  hear  and  could  not  be 
of  service  :  excuse  not  sustained — 7  to  5.  Mr.  Goodwillie  gave  as  his  excuse 
his  distance  from  the  place  of  meeting  of  Pres.,  and  in  respect  to  some  meet- 
ings that  he  did  not  know  of  them.  Excuse  not  sustained  by  the  casting  vote 
of  the  Moderator.  Mr.  Pringle  gave  as  his  excuse  the  same  as  that  of  Mr. 
Goodwillie  with  the  additional  consideration  of  expense.  Excuse  sustained. 
Mr.  D.  Gordon  gave  notice  that  if  he  should  have  occasion  to  protest  against 
any  thing  done  at  this  meeting,  he  may  make  the  sustaining  of  this  excuse 
one  reason  of  it,  to  which  notice  Messrs.  A.  Gordon,  Miller  and  Anderson  ad- 
here. The  following  resolution  was  moved  and  seconded,  viz :  Resolved, 
That  Messrs.  T.  Goodwillie  and  Wm.  Pringle  have  not  a  seat  in  Presby,  on 
the  business  of  this  meeting,  because  they  are  related  to  Dr.  Bullions  by  affin- 


228 

ity,  and  because  there  is  evidence  that  they  are  partial  in  his  cause  in  the// 
not  attending  on  the  meetings  of  Presby.  except  when  his  cause  is  on  triaL 
A  previous  motion  was  made  and  scocndcd  that  Mr.  Whyte  have  no  vote  on 
this  question  respecting  Messrs.  Goodwillc  and  Pringle,  because  his  own  case 
is  involved'  in  it  Decided  in  the  negative.  The  above  resolution  was  then 
taken  up.  It  was  moved  to  take  the  names  separately  in  the  resolution,  which 
■\yas  negatived. 

The  resolution  recurring  it  was  carried  in  the  aflirmativc  by  the  casting  vote 
of  the  Moderator.  Mr.  Goodwillie  craved  liberty  to  protest  and  appeal  to  Sy- 
nod from  the  above  decision,  if  he  see  cause — to  which  Messrs.  Pringle  and 
John  Robertson  adhere.  Mr.  Pringle  then  offered  his  protest  and  appealed  to 
Synod  for  reasons  to  be  given  in?  protest  not  admitted.  Mr.  Pringle  protested 
against  the  rejection  of  his  protest,  and  appealed  to  Synod.  Protest  admitted. 
Messrs.  Anderson  and  D.  Gordon  to  answer  reasons  of  protest.  Mr.  A.  Gor- 
don objected  to  Mr.  Whyte's  sitting  on  the  business  of  this  meeting,  as  he  had 
given  evidence  of  partiality  in  Dr.  Bullions'  favor,  in  his  not  attending  on  the 
meetings  of  this  Pby.  except  wlj_en  Dr.  Bullions'  case  is  on  trial.  The  ques- 
tion was  put,  sustain  the  objection  or  not :  and  carried,  sustain.  A  petition 
from  the  Associate  Congregation  of  Cambridge,  for  the  restoration  of  Dr.  Bul- 
lions was  given  in  and  read  ;  agreed  that  it  be  laid  on  the  table.  It  hav- 
ing been  intimated  that  the  congregation  of  Cambridge  had  appointed  com'- 
missioners  to  represent  them  before  Pby.  it  was  agreed  to  hear  them.  Messrs. 
James  Lourie  and  John  Roberts'on  were  heard  as  commissioners.  Agreed  to 
adjourn  for  one  hour  ;  closed  with  prayer. 

3,  o'clock  P.  M.  Pby.  met  and  constituted  with  prayer.  Members  present  as 
above.  Minutes  of  forenoon  session  Avere  read  and  approved.  Mr.  Goodwil- 
lie offered  his  protest  against  Pby's  not  sustaining  his  excuse  for  absence.  Pro- 
test not  admitted.  He  protested  against  the  rejection  of  his  protest  and  appeal- 
ed to  Synod.  Protest  admitted.  Resumed  the  consideration  of  the  business 
on  which  this  meeting  of  Pby.  was  called.  Having  received  from  the  congre- 
gation of  Cambridge  such  considerations  as  they  had  to  offer,  Dr.  Bullions  was 
heard.  Dr.  Bullions  stated,  that  taking  it  for  granted  that  the  language  at- 
tributed to  him  by  Pby.  was  his,  he  has  the  same  view  of  it  as  Pby.  has ; 
that  the  language  was  utterly  wrong  and  improper,  and  that  he  Avould  agree  to 
submit  to  any  censure  which  any  court  would  judge  proper.  Remarks  of  mem- 
bers were  heard.  Mr.  Stalker  asked  leave  to  read  his  remarks,  which  was 
granted.  Some  things  having  been  read  by  him,  which  were  thought  to  be 
justly  offensive  ;  it  was  moved,  seconded  and  carried  that  he  be  required  to 
give  in  the  paper  to  Pby.  for  their  use.  Resolved  that  Messrs.  Anderson  and 
Boyd  be  a  committee  to  bring  in  a  report  on  said  paper  at  the  next  regular  mee- 
ting of  Pby  In  the  course  of  remarks  on  Dr,  Bullions'  case,  the  paper  laid 
in  by  Dr.  Bullions  at  last  meeting  of  Pby.  and  the  report  of  the  committee  of 
Pby  on  it  were  called  for  and  read.  On  Avhich  the  following  motions  were 
made  and  carried,  viz  :  Moved,  that  the  1st  resolution  proposed  in  the  report 
be  adopted,   which  is  as  follows : — 

1.  Resolved,  That  this  paper  of  Dr.  Bullions  furnishes  no  proper  evidence 
of  his  penitence  for  a  most  glaring  offence  committed  in  the  presence  of  the 
court  itself.  Moved,  that  the  2d.  resolution  be  amended  to  read  as  follows 
and  adopted. 

2.  Resolved,  That  Dr.  Bullions'  professions  and  declarations  in  submissions 
to  this  Pby.  have  so  often  deceived  them  ;  that  strong  and  unequivocal  evidence 
of  repentance  is  necessary  from  Dr.  Bullions  in  order  to  warrant  Pby.  to  re- 
store him.  Moved,  seconded  and  carried  that  the  report  as  thus  amended  be 
accepted  as  the  Pby's  disposal  of  Dr.  Bullions'  paper,  and  kept  on  file. 


229 

It  was  then  resolved,  that  Dr.  Bullions  has  not  given  that  unequivocal  evi- 
dence of  repentance  on  the  matters  now  in  charge  against  him  which  is  nec- 
essary in  order  to  warrant  Pby.  to  restore  him.  A  paper  of  requisitions  to  be 
made  of  Dr.  Bullions,  was  offered  and  considered,  and  after  amendments  was 
unanimously  adopted  as  follows,  viz  : — 

1.  That  Dr.  Bullions  acknowledge  his  sin  in  denying  his  own  words  uttered 
before  Pby. 

2.  That  Dr.  Bullions  acknowledge  that  the  remarks  with  which  he  is  charg- 
ed were  unfounded  in  truth,  contemptuous  to  court  and  sinful  against  God ; 
and  that  he  is  sorry  for  his  sin  against  God  in  these  things,  and  for  his  ofTences 
against  his  brethren. 

3.  That  Dr.  Bullions  withdraw  his  protests  against  the  sentences  of  rebuke 
and  suspension, 

4.  That  Dr.  Bullions  submit  to  the  rebuke  appointed  by  Pby. 

5.  That  Dr.  Bullions  either  retract  his  declarations  as  unfounded  and  slan- 
derous, that  four  members  of  this  Pby  are  unfit  to  sit  as  members  of  this  court, 
on  supposition  that  certain  reports  in  the  possession  of  Messrs.  Peter  Gordon 
and  George  Mairs,  are  true;  or  on  the  other  hand,  that  he  pledge  himself  to 
Piy.  to  produce  these  reports  for  Pby's.  judgment :  and  in  the  latter  case,  that 
he  remain  under  suspension  till  he  produce  them  to  Pby. 

6.  That  Dr.  Bullions  acknowledge  the  impropriety  and  sinfulness  of  bring- 
ing heavy  charges  against  members  of  Pby.  as  he  has  done  on  reports  with- 
out pledging  himself  to  produce  the  reports  and  laying  them  in  for  trial. 

7.  That  Dr.  Bullions  acknowledge  the  sinfulness  of  such  an  irregular  and 
irreverent  appeal  to  the  Great  Searcher  of  hearts  as  he  did  use  in  a  paper  laid 
in  to  Pby.  by  him,  and  referred  to  by  him,  in  the  present  meeting,  with  ap- 
probation ;  and  that  this  be  included  in  the  grounds  of  rebuke  to  which  Dr. 
Bullions  is  required  to  submit.  Moved,  seconded  and  carried  that  the  5th  re- 
quisition be  put  to  Dr.  Bullions  after  a  recess  for  1-2  an  hour.  After  recess 
read  and  approved  the  minutes  so  far  as  taken  till  the  recess.  Members  pres- 
ent as  above.  The  question  was  put  as  ordered  before  recess.  Dr.  Bullions 
answered  that  he  retracts  as  the  said  requisition  requires,  viz :  That  he  '  re- 
tracts as  unfoimded  and  slanderous  the  declaration, — That  four  members  of 
this  Pby.  are  unfit  to  sit  as  members  of  this  court,  on  supposition  that  certain 
reports  in  possession  of  Messrs.  Peter  Gordon  and  George  Mairs,  are  true. ^ 
Moved  and  seconded  that  Dr.  Bullions  be  furnished  with  a  copy  of  these  re« 
quisitions  and  that  time  be  given  him  till  the  1st  Wednesday  of  Feb.  en- 
suing to  answer  to  them.  As  a  substitute  for  this  motion  it  was  moved  and 
seconded  that  Dr.  Bullions  be  furnished  with  a  copy  of  these  requisitions,  and 
time  given  him  till  to-morrow  morning  to  answer.  The  latter  motion  was  ne- 
gatived, 6  to  4.  As  another  substitute,  it  was  moved  and  seconded  that  these 
requisitions  be  put  into  Dr.  Bullions'  hands  and  time  given  him  till  the  first 
Wednesday  of  December  to  answer:  carried  in  the  affirmative."  "Pby.  to 
meet  in  Salem  on  the  1st  Wednesday  of  Dec.  at  11  o'clock,  A.  M."  "  Are- 
port  that  Dr.  Bullions  had  given  a  copy  of  that  paper  which  he  gave  into  last 
Pby.  to  the  Associate  Reformed  Pby.  was  mentioned,  and  Mr.  Anderson  ap- 
pointed a  committee  of  inquiry  on  the  matter.  Mr.  Goodwillie  or  Mr.  Prin- 
gle  to  supply  in  Cambridge  next  Sabbath,  and  Mr.  McArthur  the  two  follow- 
ing Sabbaths.  Mr.  Goodwillie  withdrew  his  protest  entered  at  this  meeting 
against  Pby's.  not  sustaining  his  excuse  for  absence.  The  minutes  were  read 
and  approved." 

"  Salem,  Wed.  Dec.  6th,  1837,  Pby.  met  according  to  adjournment" — "  con- 
stituted with  prayer  by  the  moderator,  Mr.  Miller.     Members  present,  Messrs. 


230 

Stalker,  Bullions,  D.  D.,  Anderson,  Miller,  D.  Gordon,  ministers,  Benjamin 
Skellie,  John  Kobertson,  George  Boyd,  John  Henry,  John  T.  Law,  ruling  el- 
ders. The  minutes  of  last  meeting  pro  re  nata  were  read,  amended  and  ap- 
proved. Mr.  A.  Gordon's  excuse  for  absence  from  this  meeting  was  given  in, 
viz  :  the  state  of  the  roads  rendered  the  journey  impracticable.  Excuse  sus- 
tained." "  Dr.  Bullions' case  was  next  called  up.  iMr.  D.  Gordon  objected  to 
Mr.  Stalker's  sitting  on  this  case,  because  he  had  prejudged  it,  as  appears  from 
his  paper  read  at  the  last  meeting,  in  which  he  said  that  he  would,  even  if  the 
Pby.  should  not  restore  Dr.  Bullions,  assist  hhn,  and  receive  assistance  from 
him.  Decided,  sustain  the  objection.  Dr.  Bullions  gave  notice  that  if  any 
vote  on  this  case  should  be  adverse  to  him,  he  will  claim  the  privilege  of  ma- 
king a  representation  of  it  to  Synod.  Mr.  John  Robertson  claimed  the  privi- 
lege of  entering  his  protest  against  this  decision  if  he  see  cause  ;  to  which 
claim  Mr.  Stalker  adheres. 

Dr.  Bullions  was  then  called  on  to  give  answers  to  the  requisitions  of  Pby.  put 
into  his  hand  at  last  meeting.  Dr.  Bullions  was  heard  in  his  remarks,  and  he 
read  a  paper  of  answers,  as  follows,  viz:  'Desirous  that  the  matter  depending 
between  him  and  the  Pby.  be  correctly  settled,  the  subscriber,  in  order  to  ef- 
fect this  and  to  prevent  present  and  future  mistakes  or  misrepresentations,  sub- 
mits in  writing  the  following  answers  to  the  requisitions  proposed  to  his  con- 
sideration by  Pby. — To  the  first,  1.  I  answer,  that  I  acknowledge  that  I  did  de- 
ny uttering  the  words  imputed  to  me  as  an  insinuation  against  Pby.  and  voted 
censurable,  but  as  I  had  no  consciousness  at  the  time  of  having  uttered  them, 
and  as  nothing  has  since  transpired  to  bring  to  my  remembrance  that  I  did  so, 
I  cannot  without  doing  evil  that  good  may  come,  acknowledge  the  sinfulness 
of  my  denial  of  them,  as  it  was  made  under  the  full  persuasion  that  I  did  not  use 
them.  2.  The  language  imputed  to  me  I  have  repeatedly  and  publicly  con- 
demned, and  I  acquiesce  in  the  judgment  of  the  Pby  respecting  it.  3.  To  this 
I  consent  on  the  condition  understood  that  they  may  be  resumed,  provided  the 
matter  in  dependence  is  not  adjusted.  4.  I  consent  in  deference  to  the  Pby. 
6.  That  I  regard  the  conduct  condemned  as  improper  and  sinful,  and  which 
ought  to  be  carefully  abstained  from.  7.  That  I  hold  that  appeals  to  Almighty 
God,  the  searcher  of  all  hearts  are  lawful  and  at  times  seasonable,  but  still  as 
in  the  circumstantiate  case  complained  of,  it  may  have  been  uncalled  for,  I 
submit  to  the  decision  of  Pby  respecting  it.     ALEXANDER  BULLIONS. 

Cambridge  Dec.  5th  1837. 
It  was  then  resolved  that  the  Requisitions  be  read  one  by  one  with  the  an- 
swer to  each,  which  was  done.  It  was  agreed  that  the  requisitions  and  an- 
swers be  again  read  one  by  one  in  order  to  a  final  vote.  The  answer  on  the 
first  Requisition  being  under  consideration,  Pby  agreed  to  have  a  recess  for 
3-4  of  an  hour.  After  recess,  members  present  as  above.  The  minutes  taken 
before  recess  were  read  and  approved."  "  Moved  and  seconded  that  the  vote 
excluding  Mr.  Stalker  from  a  seat  in  the  case  of  Dr.  Bullions  now  pending 
before  this  Pby.  be  reconsidered  Carried,  Reconsider.  In  addition  to  the  ob- 
jection formerly  made,  it  was  further  objected,  that  Mr.  Stalker  openly  charg- 
ed Pby  with  improper  and  unholy  motives  and  feelings  in  the  prosecution 
against  Dr.  Bullions,  and  that  there  was  in  his  remarks  an  implied  renuncia- 
tion of  the  authority  of  this  court.  The  question  was  put  on  these  objections, 
Sustain,  or  not?  Carried,  Sustain.  Resumed  the  consideration  of  the  business 
left  unfinished  before  recess.  The  members  of  Pby  and  Dr.  Bullions  were 
heard,  in  which  the  Dr.  said  that  he  referred  to  all  the  words  in  the  minute 
containing  the  insinuation,  as  the  words  which  he  did  not  recollect,  viz:  That 
he  had  insinuated  that  some  member  or  members  present  were  unfit  to  sit  in 


*  231 

any  court.'  Agreed  that  a  decision  on  this  answer  be  postponed  till  the  other 
answers  are  considered.  The  2nd.  answer  was  read.  The  requisition  was  turn- 
ed into  two  questions,  and  a  definite  answer,  aye  or  no,  required,  as  follows, 
1st,  Does  Dr.  Bullions  acknowledge  that  the  expressions  charged  were  unfoun- 
ded in  truth,  contemptuous  to  court,  and  sinful  against  God.  2nd,  Does  he 
profess  that  he  is  sorry  for  his  sin  against  God  in  these  things,  and  for  his  of- 
fences against  his  brethren?  These  quesaonswere  pui  to  Dr.  Bullions;  he  re- 
fused to  answer  unless  they  were  pm  in'o  his  hand  and  time  given  for  answer- 
ing in  wri  ing.  The  moderator  proposed  the  question.  Is  the  Dr.'s  answer 
satisfactory?  Before  the  voe,  Mr.  Gordon  opposed  the  modera'or's  decision  as 
to  the  form  of  putting  the  ques  ion,  and  appealed  lo  Pby.  Appeal  not  sustain- 
ed. Mr.  Gordon  entered  his  dissent.  The  ques'ion  was  then  pu',  Is  Dr.  Bul- 
lion's answer  sadsfacory  ?  Decided,  Not  satisfactory.  The  3rd  answer  was 
read  and  considered.  The  question  was  put,  Is  the  answer  saiisfaciory?  De- 
cided, Not  satisfacior\" — 5  io  1. 

The  4th  answer  was  read  and  considered.  The  question  was  put.  Is  the 
answer  satisfactory  ?     Decided,  Not  satisfactorj" — 5  to  2. 

The  6th  answer  was  read  and  considered.  The  question  was  put.  Is  the 
answer  satisfactory  ?     Decided,  Not  satisfactory — 5  to  2. 

The  7th  answer  was  read  and  considered.  The  question  was  put.  Is  the 
answer  satisfactory  ?     Decided,  Not  satisfactory — 5  to  2. 

The  following  question  was  on  vote  by  Pby,  put  to  Dr.  Bullions  respecting 
the  5th  requisition,  on  which  he  made  the  retraction  recorded  in  the  minutes 
of  Pby  at  Cambridge,  Nov.  14th,  1837,  viz:  Does  Dr.  Bullions  acknowledge 
his  sin  and  profess  his  unfeigned  sorrow  for  it  in  the  falsehood  and  slander 
which  he  has  acknowledged  he  did  utter  against  his  brethren  of  the  Pby? 
He  expressly  refused  to  use  the  words  "  unfeigned  sorrow,"  but  answered,  I 
thought  I  was  really  sorry  for  it,  and  I  have  made  it  a  matter  of  confession  be- 
fore God.'  The  question  was  put,  Is  this  answer  satisfactory  ?  Carried  unan- 
imously, satifactory.  Pby  returned  to  Dr.  Bullions'  answer  to  the  first  re- 
quisition. It  was  moved  and  seconded  that  the  first  requisition  and  the  an- 
swer to  it  be  dropped.  While  this  was  under  discussion,  the  following  ques- 
tions were  by  Pby  put  to  Dr.  Bullions,  viz  :  1.  Does  the  Dr.  remember  ma- 
king any  allusion  on  the  morning  of  Thursday  in  Pby  at  Argyle,  (Oct.  1837,) 
to  some  members  of  this  Pby,  as  unfit  to  sit  in  court?  The  Dr.  answer- 
ed. Yes. 

2.  Does  Dr.  Bullions  remember  that  in  the  afternoon  of  that  same  day  in 
stating  that  four  members  whom  he  named  were  unfit  to  sit  in  court  on  sup- 
position that  certain  reports  were  true,  whether  he  was  professing  to  state  the 
substance  of  Avhat  he  stated  in  the  morning  ?  To  this  question  Dr.  Bullions 
refused  to  answer. 

3.  What  word  in  the  minute  does  Dr.  Bullions  say  he  does  not  remember 
having  uttered  ?     Dr.  Bullions  refused  to  answer. 

The  question  was  then  put.  Drop  the  1st  requisition  and  the  answer  or  not  ? 
Decided  in  the  negative — 5  to  2. 

The  question  was  then  put.  Is  the  answer  on  the  1st  requisition  satistactory  ? 
Decided,  Not  satisfactory — 5  to  2. 

The  question  was  then  put.  Has  Dr.  Bullions,  in  his  answers  at  this  time 
given  such  evidence  of  repentance  as  this  court  ought  to  require  ?  Decided 
in  the  negative — 5  to  2.  Mr.  John  Robertson  requested  privilege  of  entering 
his  protest  against  the  latter  decision  if  he  think  proper,  in  which  request,  Mr. 
James  Lourie  joined  as  commissioner  from  the  congregation  of  Cambridge,  in 
their  own  name  and  in  the  name  of  those  who  may  adhere  to  them.     Mr. 


232 

Robertson  asked  more  than  tl»e  usiuil  time  to  give  in  his  protest.  The  Mod- 
erator pr«  tr.iii,  Mr.  D.  Gurdon,  decided  against  it.  Mr.  Kobcrtson  appealed  to 
Pby.  The  appeal  was  sustained.  Time  was  given  till  the  25th  of  this  inst., 
to  give  in  their  protest  to  the  Clerk, 'and  obtain  extracts.  It  was  agreed  that 
Mr.  Miller  correspond  with  the  Pby  of  Albany  in  order  to  obtain  as  much  of 
Mr.  McArtlinr's  time  as  possible  for  the  supply  of  Cambridge  congregation, 
if  they  request  the  supply.  Mr.  Kobcrtson  requested  that  the  following  ex- 
pressions uttered  b\'  IVlr.  D.  Gordon  at  this  meeting  be  recorded,  viz  :  Mr. 
Gordon  said,  '  That  Dr.  Bullions  had  written  or  caused  to  be  written  slander- 
ous letters  against  members  of  Pby,'  and,  '  1  must  be  excused  if  I  was  very 
suspicious  when  a  man  has  deceived  me  ten  times.'  The  minutes  were  read 
and  approved." 

"  Hebron,  Wcdn.  Feb.  7th,  1838.  Pby  met,  constituted  with  prayer  by  Mr, 
Miller,  Moderator.  Members  present,  Messrs.  Stalker,  A.  Gordon,  Anderson, 
Miller,  D.  Gordon,  ministers.  Benj.  Skellie,  Adam  Darling,  Geo.  Boyd,  John 
Henry,  Wm.  Dobbin,  ruling  elders."  "Mr.  James  Lourie  being  proposed  as 
a  member  of  Pby  from  Cambridge  instead  of  John  Robertson,  and  as  appoint- 
ed by  the  session  of  Cambridge,  constituted  by  Dr.  Bullions. 

It  was  resolved  that  Mr.  Lourie  is  not  entitled  to  a  seat  in  Pby.  in  virtue  of 
his  appointment,  and  because  he  is  in  a  state  of  insubordination  to  Pby ;  but 
that  Mr.  Lourie  may  be  heard  in  Pby.  on  the  affairs  of  the  congregation  of 
Cambridge."  "  Papers  were  called  for.  Paper  No.  1  from  Dr.  Bullions." 
"•  Paper  No.  1  was  put  into  the  hands  of  a  committee  before  reading  it.  Messrs. 
A.  Gordon  and  Anderson  the  committee."  "  The  committee  to  whom  was 
referred  a  paper  given  in  to-day  from  Dr.  Bullions,  reported  that  it  ought  to  be 
read.  It  was  then  read,  and  on  motion,  put  into  the  hand  of  a  committee  to 
■report  thereon  to-morrow.  A.  Anderson  said  committee,"  Mr,  Stalker  claim- 
ed the  privilege  of  protesting  against  a  decision  of  Pby  at  Salem,  Dec.  6th, 
1837,  excluding  him  from  a  seat  on  the  case  then  pending,  and  against  which 
he  then  adhered  to  a  claim  of  protest  by  Mr.  John  Robertson.  Protest  not 
admitted.  Mr,  Stalker  protested  against  the  rejection  of  his  protest,  which 
was  admitted.  Mr.  D.  Gordon,  the  committee  to  answer  reasons  of  protest. 
A  protest  by  John  Robertson  against  a  decision  of  Pby.  at  Salem  declaring 
Dr.  Bullions'  answers  to  the  requisions  of  Pby.  unsatisfactory  as  evidence  of 
repentance,  was  ofTered.  Protest  not  admitted.  In  answer  to  questions  by 
Pby.  James  Lourie  said  that  it  is  well  known  that  Dr.  Bullions  has  been 
.preaching  since  the  pro  re  mtta  meeting  of  Pby.  at  Salem,  except  on  the  first 
Sabbath  after  that  meeting,  and  that  a  majority  of  the  congregation  of  Cam- 
bridge waited  on  his  ministry,  and  that  Dr.  Bullions  constituted  the  session  of 
Oambridge,  and  that  he  has  also  administered  baptism  since  that  meeting." 

"  Thursday,  Feb.  8th,  9  A.  M.  Pby.  met,  constituted  with  prayer  by  the 
moderator,  Mr.  Miller.  Members  present  as  yesterday  except  Mr. Boyd  absent 
tDn  account  of  sickness.  Mr.  John  McClellan  was  assumed  in  his  place."  Papers 
were  called  for.  A  report  of  the  committee  on  Dr.  Bullions'  paper  laid  in  at 
this  meeting  was  read  and  adopted,  and  it  was  resolved  that  the  clerk  rectify 
Dr.  Bullions  according  to  the  tenor  of  that  report.  In  accordance  with  that 
report,  Mr.  D.  Gordon  was  appointed  to  answer  the  reasons  of  protest  contain- 
•ed  in  Dr.  Bullions  paper.  The  following  is  the  report  viz  :  "  Dr.  Bullions 
appears  to  have  three  objects  in  view  in  this  paper,  viz  :  1.  A  declinature  of 
the  authority  of  this  Pby  over  him  or  his  congregation  now  and  hereafter.  2. 
An  additional  expression  of  contempt  of  Pby,  by  denying  their  right  constitu- 
tion and  their  character  as  a  Pby,  or  a  court  of  Christ,  and  declaring  their  au- 
thority assumed.     3.  Reasons  of  protest  in  part  for  all  his  protests  taken  in  his 


233 

case  pending.  Your  committee  therefore  recommend  to  Pby.  1.  To  give  this 
paper  into  the  hands  of  a  committee  for  answers  to  it  as  reasons  of  protest. 
2*  That  for  his  contempt  of  Pby  manifested  in  this  paper  with  all  the  former 
grounds  of  charge  against  Dr,  Bullions  in  the  case  depending,  Pby  notify  him 
to  appear  before  them  at  their  next  meeting,  and  warn  him  that  unless  he  im- 
mediately desist  from  the  exercise  of  the  ministry  and  submit  to  their  decis- 
ions they  will  proceed  to  higher  censure. 

A.  ANDERSON,  Committee. 

"  Resolved,  That  a  warning  be  addressed  ro  the  Ass.  Congregation  of  Cam- 
■bridge  on  their  present  course.     Mr,  D.  Gordon  proposed  a  paper  as  an  over- 
ture of  a  warning  to  the  congregation  of  Cambridge,  which  was  read.     It  was 
moved  and  seconded  that  the  overture  be  adopted.     An  amendment  was  pro- 
posed"    "  It  was  then  agreed  that  the  present  business  be  laid  over  till  busi- 
ness before  Pby.  respectingMr.  Stalker  be  attended  to."  "  Resolved  that  Pby. 
take  testimony  at  South  Argyle  on  the  2d  Tuesday  of  April  next  ensuing  on 
Dr.  Bullions'  declarations  made  at  the   meeting  of  Pby.  at  S.  Argyle  in  Oct. 
last  respecting   members  of  Pby  in  connection  with  the  minutes  on  that  sub- 
ject, and  that  the  clerk  summon  witnesses  and  notify  Dr.  Bullions  of  this  res- 
olution.    Took  up  the  overture  left  under  discussion.     It  was  read,  discussed, 
amended  and  adopted.     It  was  resloved  that   A.   Anderson  be  appointed  to 
preach  at  Cambridge  and  read  the  warning  to  the  congregation,  and  to  con- 
vene and  constitute  the  session  for  this  business,  and  that  Thursday  the  l5th 
inst  be  the  day  appointed  for  this  session.     The  session  to  be  convened  at  10 
o'clock,  A.  M,  and  public  worship  to  commence  12  o'clock,  M.     The  members 
of  session  present  from  Cambridge  are  hereby  enjoined  to  give  intimation  to 
the  session  and  congregation  according  to  the  above  resolution.     Next  meet- 
ing of  Pby  to  be  at  Salem  on  the  first  Wednesday  of  March  next  ensuing  at 
11  o'clock,  A.  M.     Resolved  that  Pby.  take  order  on  those  expressions  of  Mr. 
D.  Gordon  recorded  at  Salem.     Resolved  that  Mr.  D.  Gordon  be   required  to 
prove  his  expression  made  and  recorded  at  Salem,  viz:  "that  Dr.  Bullions  had 
written  or  caused   to  be  written  slanderous  letters   against  members  of  Pby  ; 
and  that  he  be  required  to  do  this  at   next  meeting  of  Pby  and  that  Dr.  Bul- 
lions be  notified  of  this  resolution." 

"  Salem,  March  7th,  Wedn.,  1S3S,  Pby  met,  constituted  with  prayer  by  the 
■moderator,  Mr.  Miller.  Members  present,  Messrs.  A.  Gordon,  Miller,  Ander- 
son, D.  Gordon,  ministers  ;  Adam  Darling,  John  Henry,  James  Reid,  Wm. 
Dobbin,  ruling  elders."  "  Agreed  to  take  up  the  case  of  D.  Gordon,  requiring 
him  to  prove  his  expression, — That  Dr.  Bullions  had  written  or  caused  to  be 
written  slanderous  letters  against  members  of  Pby.  Mr.  A.  Gordon  was,  by  or- 
der, excluded  from  a  seat  in  this  case  on  account  of  relationship.  Resolved, 
that  D.  Gordon's  expression  is  censurable,  if  not  proved.  Mr.  D.  Gordon  was 
called  on  for  his  proof.  He  requested  that  he  have  privilege  of  retaining  the 
papers  which  he  may  offer  in  proof.  Request  granted,  on  condition  that  Pby. 
■have  the  use  of  them  as  they  may  need  them.  Mr.  D.  Gordon  offered  wit- 
nesses to  prove  the  hand-writing  in  a  certain  paper  produced  to  Pby  by  him 
purporting  to  be  a  letter  to  Dr.  Bullions  from  Franklinville,  marked  No.  4, 
March,  1838.  Messrs.  Chauncy  Ransom  and  Clark  Rice  were  sworn  and  gave 
testimony.  Messrs.  John  McArthur  and  Wm.  McGeoch  were  summoned  by 
the  moderator  to  attend  in  this  place  as  witnesses  on  this  case  to-day,  and 
Messrs.  James  Thompson  and  Wm.  McKie  were  requested  to  attend  for  the 
same  purpose."  "  Messrs.  James  Thompson  and  Wm.  McKie  were  sworn  and 
gave  testimony,  as  also  John  McArthur  and  Wm.  McGeoch.  Messrs.  George 
30 


234 

Jjourie  and  James  Lourie  were  also  sworn  and  gave  testimony.  Mr.  D.  Gor- 
don also  gave  in  to  Pby  a  letter  marked  No.  16  from  the  Hev.  Peter  Campbell 
for  Pby's  use  in  the  case  ;  also  a  letter  from  D.  McClure,  Post  Master,  Frank- 
linville,  N.  Y.,  marked  No.  17.  Another  letter  which  had  been,  by  the  en- 
dorsing, addressed  to  the  Rev.  J.  P.  Miller,  marked  by  Pby.  No.  18  was  read 
and  compared  with  the  letter  in  question,  and  found  to  be  the  same  with  the 
exception  of  a  foot-note.  Messrs.  J.  P.  Miller  and  John  Dobbin  were  sworn 
and  gave  testimony.  Mr.  A.  Gordon  in  the  chair  while  Mr.  Miller  gave  testi- 
mony. Mr.  D.  Gordon  gave  notice  that  his  testimonj'  is  closed,  reserving 
privilege  of  bringing  forward  more  testimony  hereafter  if  he  see  cause.  Mr. 
D.  Gordon  was  heard  in  defence.  The  members  of  Pby  were  heard,  and  the 
question  was  put,  Has  Mr.  D.  Gordon  proved  his  assertion  ?  Carried  unani- 
mously, proved. 

It  having  appeared  in  the  above  trial,  that  there  is  evidence  that  Dr.  A. 
Bullions  has  written,  caused  to  be  written,  or  published  slanderous  letters  a- 
gainst  members  of  this  Pby,  it  was  resolved  that  a  committee  be  appointed 
to  report  to-morrow  morning  a  plan  of  issuing  this  matter  with  Dr.  Bullions. 
A.  Anderson  was  appointed  said  committee."  "Agreed  that  next  meeting  of 
Pby  be  at  S.  Argyle  on  the  2d  Tuesbav  of  April  next  ensuing  at  11  o'clock, 
A.  M. 

"  Thursday,  March  8th,  9- o'clock,  A.  M.,  Pby.  met,  constituted  with  prayer 
by  Mr.  A.  Gordon,  Moderator  ^jro  tern.  Members  present  as  yesterday,  except 
Mr.  Miller,  absent  on  leave.     Read  and  approved  the  minutes  of  yesterday. 

Took  up  the  case  of  Dr.  Bullions  as  arising  out  of  the  trial  of  the  Rev.  D. 
Gordon,  which  took  place  yesterday.  The  report  of  the  committee  on  the 
case  was  read,  which  is  as  follows  :  Your  committee  appointed  to  prepare  a 
plan  of  issuing  the  case  of  Dr.  Bullion  aj  connected  with  the  slanderous  letters 
referred  to  by  him  in  his  late  charges  against  members  of  Pby, report,  Thatinthe 
progress  of  the  trial  of  the  Rev.  D.  Gordon  just  issued,  evidence  has  appear- 
ed that  Dr.  Bullions  himself  raised  and  published  those  slanderous  reports  on 
which  he  has  made,  in  Pby,  his  charge  against  some  of  the  members.  Your 
committee  therefore  recommend  to  Pby  the  following  plan  of  proceedure,  viz: 
That  Dr.  Bullions  be  immediately  put  on  trial  under  the  charge  of  making 
himself  responsible  for  certain  slanderous  letters  against  members  of  this 
Pby,  by  writing,  causing  to  be  written,  publishing,  or  commending  them, 
copies  of  which  letters  have  appeared  in  Pby  on  the  trial  of  the  Rev  D.  Gor- 
don, and  of  which,  it  appears,  there  was  a  copy,  substantially  at  least,  in  the 
hands  of  the  Rev.  George  Mairs,  Jr.  '    A.  ANDERSON,  Comm. 

It  was  agreed  to  accept  the  report,  and  that  the  plan  of  proceedure  recommen- 
ded in  it  be  adopted.  The  Moderator  requested  privilege  of  entering  his  dis- 
sent from  this  decision,  for  reasons  to  be  given  in,  Request  granted.  The  fol- 
lowino-  resolution  was  then  offered,  viz  :  Resolved,  That  Dr.  Bullions  be  cited 
to  appear  at  next  meeting  of  Pby  for  trial  of  this  case  of  making  himself  re- 
sponsible for  certain  slanderous  letters,  &c.  with  certification  that  if  he  fail  to 
appear,  Pby  will  decide  on  the  case,  accumulate  it  with  his  other  offences, 
and  peremptorily  give  sentence  of  deposition.  A  question  was  asked  as  to 
order,  by  A.  Anderson,  Whether  Dr.  Bullions  should  be  certified  that  if  he 
do  not  attend  at  next  meeting  of  Pby,  this  case  shall  then  be  finally  issued  ? 
The  Moderator  decided  in  the  affirmative.  A.  Anderson  appealed  from  this 
decision.  The  appeal  was  not  sustained,  b}^  the  vote  being  a  tie.  A.  Ander- 
son asked  privilege  of  entering  his  dissent  from  this  decision  if  he  see  cause. 
Granted.     The  above  resolution  Av,as  then  adopted." 

"  South  Argyle,  Tuesday  April  10th,  1838.  Pby  met  constituted  with  prayer 


235 

by  the  Moderator  Mr.  Miller.  Members  present,  Messrs.  Stalker  A.  Gordon, 
Anderson,  Miller,  D.Gordon,  ministers;  Benj.  Skellie,  James  Reid,  John 
Henry,  Wm.  Dobbin,  ruling  elders."  "Papers  were  called  for.  No.  1,  A  com- 
munication from  Dr.  Bullions  in  answer  to  a  citation  by  Pby  which  was  read 
and  laid  on  the  table." 

"It  was  on  motion  agreed  to  proceed  to  the  special  business  of  this  day,  viz: 
the  taking  of  testimony  in  reference  to  the  minutes  on  Dr.  Bullions'  case  ac- 
cording to  appointment  at  Hebron,  Feb.  8th  1838. 

The  following  minute  was  made  expressive  of  Pby's  reasons  for  taking  the 
testimony  just  referred  to,  viz:  Whereas  Pby  believe  that  Dr.  Bullions  used 
different  forms  of  expression  on  Oct.  5th  1837,  at  S.  Argyle  respecting  mem- 
bers of  Pby  not  being  fit  to  sit  in  court,  and  as  it  may  be  of  importance  to  have 
them  all  before  the  court  in  issuing  his  case.  Therefore  it  was  resolved  to 
take  testimony  accordingly.  Witnesses  summoned  were  Caspar  Bain,  John 
Stott,  John  Bishop,  John  McGeoch,  R.  W.  Richie,  Andrew  Beveridge,  Geo. 
Beveridge,  Geo.  Boyd.  The  first  three  of  whom  were  sworn  and  gave  testi- 
mony. It  was  judged  unnecessary  to  examine  more  witnesses  in  this  case. 
The  following  preamble  and  resolution  were  offered  and  adopted,  viz: 
Whereas  Dr.  Bullions  has  published  a  letter  addressed  to  the  congregation  of 
Cambridge  affecting  the  matters  at  issue  in  his  case  before  Pby.  Resolved 
that  a  committee  be  appointed  to  report  on  said  letter  and  that  they  brinw  in 
their  report  at  this  meeting.     Mr.  D.  Gordon  was  appointed  said  committee." 

"Pby  took  up  the  case  of  Dr.  Bullions,  viz:  the  charge  made  against  him 
by  Pby  respecting  the  anonymous  letters  slandering  members  of  Pby.  This 
as  well  as  taking  the  above  testimony  was  done  in  Dr.  Bullions'  absence,  be- 
ing according  to  appointment,  and  certification  to  him,  and  because  Pby  at 
this  meeting  has  received  from  him  a  refusal  to  attend  and  a  declinature  of 
their  authority.  Mr.  D.  Gordon  proposed  Messrs.  Stalker  and  Whyte,  mem- 
bers of  this  Pby,  as  witnesses  in  the  case.  Mr.  Stalker  was  sworn  and  gave 
testimony.  As  Mr.  Whyte  was  not  present,  it  was  agreed  to  appoint  a  com- 
mission to  wait  on  Mr.  Whyte  and  take  his  testimony  on  this  case  this  evening 
or  to-morrow  morning.  Messrs.  Miller  and  John  S\ott  were  appointed  said 
commission. 

The  report  on  Dr.  Bullions'  printed  letter  was  read.  It  was  agreed  that  the 
committee  be  continued  with  instructions  to  make  amendments  and  to  bring  in 
a  resolution  at  the  present  meeting  in  order  to  issue  the  matter.  It  was  agreed 
to  take  up  for  adjudication  the  things  judged  relevant  to  infer  censure  in  the 
printed  Memorial.  The  first  item  of  charge  was  read  and  the  specified  pas- 
sage in  the  Memorial  on  which  it  was  based.  The  question  was  put  after  dis- 
cussion. Does  the  specified  passage  in  the  Memorial  support  the  charge?  It 
was  carried  support.  The  2nd  charge  was  read  with  the  specification,  discus^ 
sed,  put  and  carried.  That  the  charge  is  supported.  The  3rd  charge  was  read 
with  its  specifications,  discussed,  pu^and  carried.  That  the  charge  is  support- 
ed. The  4th  charge  was  read  with  its  specifications,  discussed,  put  and  car- 
ried. That  it  is  supported.  The  following  are  the  charges  referred  to  above, 
viz:  1.  The  language  used  by  the  Memorialists  in  their  first  paragraph  is 
injurious  respecting  Synod's  decision  especially  on  account  of  the  irregular 
manner  in  which  it  is  advanced.  2nd.  They  approve  and  commend  the  in- 
subordinate anti-presbyterial  conduct  of  the  1st,  Ass.  Congregation  of  N. 
York.  3.  They  endeavour  to  revive  and  keep  up  the  troubles  that  had  been 
settled  in  the  Ass.  Pby  of  Cambridge.  4.  They  grossly  misrepresent  the  Pby 
of  Albany  and  the  Synod.  It  was  agreed  that  the  case  of  Dr.  Bullions  before 
Pby  be  made  the  order  of  the  day  for  Thursday  the  12th  inst.  at  11  o'clock,  A. 
M.  and  that  he  be  cited  then  to  attend  with  certification  that  his  case  will  then 


236 

be  issued.  It  was  agreed  that  Dr.  Bullions'  declinature  given  in  to-day  be  put 
into  the  hands  of  a  committee  to  report  on  it  at  this  meeting.  Mr.  A.' Gordon 
to  be  said  committee." 

"  S.  Argyle,  Wedn.  April  11th,  1S3S,  Phy  met,  constituted  with  prayer  by 
Mr.  D.  Gordon,  Moderator.  Mr.  A.  Gordon  was  appointed  Clerk,  pro  tern.  ; 
Members  present  as  yesterday,  except  Mr,  Anderson  absent  on  leave.  The 
minutes  of  yesterday  were  read,  corrected  and  approved.  Papers  were  called 
for.  The  commission  appointed  to  take  the  Rev.  A.  Whyte's  testimony,  re- 
ported and  read  his  statement  to  Pby.  which  it  was  agreed  be  laid  on  the 
table  with  the  other  tcstimcny.  The  committm  on  Dr.  Bullions'  communication 
to  Pby.  read  a  report,  which  was  laid  on  the  table  for  the  present.  The  com- 
mittee on  the  printed  letter  reported  amendments  and  additions  to  the  report 
read  yesterday,  which  it  was  agreed  to  lay  on  the  table  for  the  present." 

"  Thursday,  April  12th,  10  A.  M.  S.  Argyle,  Pby.  met,  constituted  with 
prayer  by  Mr.  D.  Gordon,  Moderator.  Members  present  as  yesterday,  except 
Messrs.  Stalker  and  John  Stevenson  absent  without  leave.  The  minutes  of 
yesterday  were  read  and  corrected."  "  The  citation  of  Dr.  Bullions  was  re- 
turned duly  served."  Pby.  agreed  to  proceed  to  the  order  of  the  day,  viz  : 
the  case,  of  Dr.  Bullions.  As  Dr.  Bullions  did  not  obey  the  citation  nor  send 
any  excuse,  Pby.  proceeded  in  his  absence  to  try  the  charge  respecting  the 
anonymous  letters,  and  entered  on  the  probation  accordingly,  (see  min.  p.  133.) 
It  was  agreed  that  the  letters  referred  to  be  read.  The  question,  after  mem- 
bers were  fully  heard,  was  put,  Has  the  slanderous  character  of  these  letters 
been  established  ?  carried  in  the  affirmative  unanimously.  Pby.  now  entered 
on  the  probation  of  the  authorship  of  the  letters.  The  minutes,  relating  to 
that  charge  at  a  former  meeting,  were  read  together  with  sundry  letters,  and 
the  testimony  taken  thereon.  After  members  were  heard,  the  question  was 
put.  Is  the  authorship,  as  charged,  established  ?  carried  unanimously  in  the 
affirmative.  The  report,  which  had  been  read  on  the  printed  letters,  Avas  tak- 
en up.  On  motion,  Eesolved,  that  the  first  resolution  recommended  be  adopt- 
ed, which  is  as  follows,  viz. :  Resolved,  that  the  whole  is  the  highest  degree 
of  contumacy,  aggravated  by  falsehood,  slander,  mis-representation  and  con- 
tempt, which  are  here  employed  to  form  a  defence  of  his  contumacy.  The 
report  on  the  communication,  or  2d  declinature  sent  in  by  Dr.  Bullions  was 
taken  up.  It  was  resolved  that  it  be  received  and  given  into  the  hands  of  the 
committee  of  publication,  The  minutes,  respecting  the  printed  memorial, 
were  read.  It  was  resolved  that  the  offences  herein  be  accumulated  with  Dr. 
Bullions'  other  offences  with  which  he  is  charged.  The  preamble  to  the  re- 
solution of  censure  M'as  adopted  on  motion,  and  after  prayer  it  was  unani- 
mously resolved  that  Dr.  A.  Bullions  be  deposed.  Whereupon,  the  Moderator 
did  in  the  narhe  of  the  great  Head  of  the  Church  depose  him  from  the  office 
of  the  holy  ministry  in  the  words  following,  viz  :  Whereas  the  Rev.  Alexander 
Bullions,  D.  D.,  in  October  last,  at  S.  Argyle,  when  a  case  was  on  trial,  in 
which  the  Rev.  D.  Stalker  was  a  party,  alledged  as  a  reason  why  Pby.  ought 
not  to  proceed  in  the  trial  that  such  things  were  reported  in  the  country  as 
would  disqualify  several  members  for  sitting  in  that  or  any  other  court,  refer- 
ring at  the  same  time  to  the  Rev.  George  Mairs  and  Rev.  Peter  Gordon  for 
proof.  And  being  required  to  name  the  members  and  to  specify  the  things 
charged,  he  refused  to  do  so,  and  at  the  same  time  denied  the  expressions 
which  he  had  used.  Whereupon  Pby.  voted  that  he  be  rebuked  as  being 
guilty  of  contempt  of  court  and  of  slandering  members.  To  which  censure 
Dr.  Bullions  not  submitting,  the  Pby.,  for  his  contempt  and  contumacy,  sus- 
pended him  from    the  exercise  of  his   ministry  and  the   communion  of  the 


237 

church.  And  whereas  Pby.  have  discovered  in  the  course  of  this  business^ 
that  the  origin  of  the  above  alledged  slanderous  report  was  a  number  of 
slanderous  anonymous  letters  which  Dr.  Bullions  had  either  written  himself, 
or  caused  to  be  written  and  circulated.  Whereas  he  has  in  this  matter,  in  a 
most  wanton  and  unprovoked  manner,  when  his  brethren  were  at  peace  with 
him,  broken  his  own  solemn  promise,  made  at  one  time,  in  answer  to  the  re- 
quisition made  by  Synod,  and  at  another  to  the  requisition  of  Phy.  never  ao-ain 
to  agitate  any  of  the  matters  which  had  troubled  Pby.  Whereas,  contrary  to 
all  church  order  he  has  exercised  his  ministry  in  teaching  and  sealing  ordi- 
nances, not  submitting,  at  any  time,  to  the  sentence  in  defiance  to  the  authority 
of  the  court,  and  only  for  a  short  tiine  in  defiance  to  the  people  of  Cambridge. 
Whereas  he  has  given  in  his  declinature  of  Pby's  authority,  in  which  he  de- 
clares that  he  holds  all  acts,  which  they  may  in  future  pass  affecting  him,  null 
and  void  ;  at  the  same  time  denying  that  this  is  a  rifrhtly  constituted  court, 
thereby  casting  upon  it  the  utmost  contempt.  Whereas  Dr.  Bullions  has  pub- 
lished a  letter  addressed  to  Cambridge  Congregation  in  which  he  renews  his 
declinature,  thereby  separating  himself  from  the  Associate  Church,  and  re- 
nouncing Presbyterial  church  government,  and  the  whole  being  the  highest 
degree  of  contumacy,  aggravated  by  falsehood,  slander,  mis-representation 
and  contempt,  which  are  there  employed  to  make  a  defence  of  his  contumacy, 
and  by  his  ex  parte  statements  and  his  garbled  quotations  from  standard  books, 
of  discipline,  in  which  (letter  therefore)  he  has  practically  separated  himself 
from  the  Associate  Church,  and  renounced  Presbyterian  Church  government, 
and  finally  has  sent  in  at  this  present  meeting  his  declinature  a  second  time, 
and  all  these  charges,  requiring  proof,  having  been  clearly  proved,  according 
to  due  course  of  order,  therefore. 

Resolved,  that  he  be  deposed  from  the  office  of  the  holy  ministry,  and  dis- 
charged from  exercising  any  part  of  the  same,  aye,  and  until  he  give  satisfac- 
tory evidence  of  his  repentance  and  reformation.  And  accordingly,  we  (the 
Associate  Presbytery  of  Cambridge)  hereby  do  in  the  name,  and  by  the  au- 
thority of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  depose  the  said  Alexander  Bullions  D.  D., 
from  the  office  of  the  holy  ministry,  and  prohibit  him  from  exercising  any  part 
of  the  same,  and  excommunicate  him  with  the  lesser  sentence  of  excommuni- 
cation until  he  repent  and  return  to  his  duty  in  submission  to  Pby.  It  was 
agreed  that  a  fast  day  be  observed  in  all  the  Congregations  under  the  care  of  this 
Pby,  and  that  the  sentences  of  Messrs.  Stalker  and  Bullions  be  read  on  that 
day,  Thursday  next  week  was  appointed  as  the  fast  day  both  in  Cambridge  and 
N.  Argyle.  The  day  that  is  to  be  observed  in  the  other  congregations  to  be 
left  to  the  discretion  of  their  sessions  respectively.  It  was  agreed  that  the 
member  appointed  to  Cambridge  read  the  sentence  and  declare  the  congrega- 
tion vacant,  Mr.  Miller  was  appointed  to  N.  Argyle  and  Mr.  Anderson  to 
Cambridge.  The  session  of  Cambridge  to  meet  on  that  day  at  10,  and  the 
congregation  at  11,  A.  M." 

"Hebron,  Wed.  May  9th  1S3S.  Pby  met  constituted  with  prayer  by  Mr.  D, 
Gordon  Moderator.  Members  present,  Messrs.  A.  Gordon,  Anderson,  Miller, 
D.  Gordon,  ministers.  James  Reid,  John  Henry,  ruling  elders."  "Fulfil- 
ment of  appointments  was  inquired  into  and  found  to  be  substantially  fulfilled. 
"A  communication  addressed  to  the  Clerk  of  Pby  purporting  to  be  from  the 
Ass.  Congregation  of  Cambridge,  and  signed  by  James  Coulter  as  chairman 
and  Samuel  McDoal  as  secretary  was  offered  to  Pby  and  agreed  to  be  read. 
After  reading,  it  was  laid  on  the  table  for  the  present."  "Took  up  the  paper 
purporting  to  be  from  the  Ass.  congregation  of  Cambridge.     It  was  agreed 


238 

that  a  committee  be  appointed  to  bring  in  :i  report  on  this  paper  to  the  meeting 
of  Pb\'.  in  Phila.  Mr.  A.  Gordon  to  bo  said  committee." 

"Phila.  May  !23rd,  Wedn.  1838.  Pby  met,"  "constituted  with  prayer  by 
the  Moderator  Mr.  D.  Gordon.  Members  present,  Messrs.  A.  Gordon,  Ander- 
son, Miller,  D.  Gordon,  ministers."  Adorn  Darling,  Gilbert  Robertson,  An- 
drew Martin,  ruling  elders."  Read  a  report  on  a  communication  to  Pby  by 
the  majority  of  Cambridge  congregation,  which  report  was  laid  over  for  further 
consideration."     "  Adjourned  to  meet  in  Salem  on  the  4th  Wednesday  of  June. 

"Salem,  Wedn.  June  27th  1S3S.  Pby  met,  according  to  appointment,  con- 
stituted with  prayer  by  the  Moderator,  Rev,  D.  Gordon.  Members  present, 
Messrs.  Anderson,  Miller,  D.  Gordon  ministers.  Jolin  Reid,  John  Bishop, 
Wm.  Dobbin  ruling  elders."  "Mr.  McKie,  a  commissioner  from  Synod  being 
present,  was  invited  to  a  seat  in  Pby."  "Called  for  papers  and  the  following 
were  given  in  and  read,  viz:  No.  1,  A  resolution  by  the  Ass.  congregation 
of  Cambridge,  appointed  a  committee,  &c.  No.  2,  A  paper  by  Dr.  Bullions 
addressed  to  said  committee.  No.  3,  A  paper  by  the  committee  of  Cambridge 
congregation  containing  demands  of  concessions  from  him,  and  his  answers  to 
them.  These  papers  were  laid  on  the  table  for  the  present,"  "It  was  agreed 
that  John  Robertson  be  assumed  as  a  member  of  Pby  from  Cambridge."  "The 
above  papers  No's  1,  2,  3,  it  Avas  agreed  to  return  to  the  committee  of  Cam- 
bridge congregation  from  which  they  came,  as  it  appears  there  was  some  mis- 
understanding in  their  presentation,  and  as  it  appears  the  papers  are  not  ad- 
dressed to  Pby,  but  are  between  the  congregation,  their  committee  and  Dr. 
Bullions.  Mr.  James  Lourie  from  the  committee  of  the  congregation  of  Cam- 
brido-e,  requested  instruction  from  Pby  with  respect  to  their  dealing  with  Dr. 
Bullions.  In  connection  with  this  request,  three  resolutions,  were  proposed, 
discussed,  and  unanimously  adopted,  viz: 

Resolved  1,  That  Dr.  Bullions  cannot  be  restored  to  his  former  standing 
with  this  Pby  without  full  submission  to  the  decisions  of  Pby  and  Synod  in 
his  case. 

2.  That  Pby  cannot  recognize  any  of  the  members  of  Cambridge  congre- 
gation, who  adhere  to  Dr.  Bullions  in  his  non-submission,  as  in  full  commu- 
nion and  good  standing  with  us,  or  entitled  to  the  privileges  of  church  mem- 
bership, as  long  as  they  continue  in  their. present  course. 

3.  That  those  of  the  Ass.  Congregation  of  Cambridge,  who  do  not  adere  to, 
nor  support  Dr.  Bullions  in  his  non-submission,  but  who  adhere  to  the  Pby. 
and  Synod  in  their  decisions  in  his  case,  be  and  they  hereby  are  recognized 
as  the  organized  Ass.  Congregations  of  Cambridge.  On  motion,  Resolved, 
that  a  copy  of  the  above  resolutions  be  given  to  the  Ass.  Congregation  of 
Cambridge." 

"  S,  Argyle,  Tuesday,  July  17th,  1838,  Pby.  met,  constituted  with  prayer 
by  the  Moderator  Mr.  D.  Gordon  ;  Members  present,  Messrs.  Anderson,  Miller, 
p.  Gordon,  ministers,  James  Reid,  John  Bishop,  John  Robertson,  elders." 

"  Took  up  unfinished  business.  A  paper  by  the  minority  of  Cambridge 
Congregation,  but  now  recognized  as  the  Ass.  Congregation  of  Cambridge,  was 
given  in  and  read,  and  ordered  to  be  kept  on  file.  Mr.  John  Robertson  asked 
advice  for  the  session  of  Cambridge  in  their  present  circumstances.  In  an- 
swer to  this  request,  it  was  agreed  that  the  session  be  advised  to  meet,  and 
that  they  be  authorized  to  call  on  any  members  of  Pby.  to  constitute  the 
gessipn  as  often  as  they  may  think  it  necessary." 

A  true  Extract,  (errors  excepted.) 

A.  ANDERSON,  Pby.  Clerk:' 


239 

«•  EXHIBIT  R." 

Notice  from  Trustees  of  Associate  Church  in  Cambride,  "  forbidding  oc- 
cupancy" &c.  as  follows  : — 

"  We  the  Trustees  of  the  Associate  Congregation  of  Cambridge  in  its  name, 
and  by  its  authority,  and  in  the  name  and  by  the  authority  of  the  good  people 
of  the  State  of  New-York,  and  by  the  authority  in  us  vested  by  the  laws  of 
said  State;  forbid  each  and  every  of  you  the  privilege  of  entering  into  and 
occupying  our  meeting-house,  and  shall  hold  every  entry  and  occupancy  as 
trespass  upon  our  rights,  and  against  the  peace  of  the  people  of  the  State  of 
New- York. 

I  certify  the  above  to  be  a  true  copy  of  the  paper  read  to  the  congregation. 

JAMES  SHILAND,  Clerk:' 

"EXHIBIT  S." 
Notice  read  to  Congregation  by  Corns,  of  Synod.  (See  Robert  Kerr's  depo-- 
sition)  as  follows  :  — 

"  June  17,  1838. 
To  the  officers  and  members  of  the  Associate  Congregation  of  Cambridge  : — 
Dear  Brethren, — We  the  undersigned,  appointed  by  the  Associate  Synod  of 
North  America,  to  '  labor  among  you,  and  to  as  far  as  practicable,  heal  your 
divisions,  hereb)^  inform  you  that  the  deed  of  the  Associate  Presbytery  of  Cam-- 
bridge  deposing  Alexander  Bullions,  D.  D.,  from  the  office  of  the  holy  minis- 
try has  been  affirmed  by  the  Synod  :  and  the  Synod  accordingly  declare  that 
he  has  no  right  to  exercise  his  ministry  under  his  protest.  We  ask  you  to  re- 
ceive us.  We  beseech  you  to  pause  before  you  throw  open  contempt  on  the 
authority  of  Christ's  house.  Inasmuch  as  we  are  excluded  from  the  pulpit  of 
this  house  by  the  vote  of  two  Trustees,  and  the  illep'al  possession  of  the  individ- 
ual who  now  occupies  it,  we  call  upon  you  to  retirt.  ^or  the  present  from  this 
house,  and  meet  with  us  for  public  worship  in  the  ho  se  of  Mr.  Wm.  Robert-' 
son  contiguous. 

We  also  hereby  notify  this  Congregation  that  a  meeting  of  the  members  of 
the  Associate  Congregation  of  Cambridge  is  called  to  meet  on  Wednesday  neXt 
in  the  church  at  10  o'clock  to  hear  us  in  relation  to  the  grounds  of  the  Synod's 
proceedure,  and  to  decide  on  the  measures  proper  in  the  present  condition  of 
vacancy.  Your  aftectionate  brethren, 

ALEX.  T.  McGILL, 
JOSEPH  McKEE". 
"EXHIBIT  T." 
Minutes  of  Congregation  from  June,   '38  to  Jan'ry,  '42.     (See  Wm.  I  Gra- 
ham's deposition.)     This  Exhibit  also  contains  extracts  from  the  minutes  pre-- 
vious,  and  is  as  follows  : 

A  copy  from  the  records  of  the  managers  or  trustees  of  the  Associate  Con-- 
gregation  of  Cambridge. 

Cambridge,  Feb'y  21st^  1802.- 

The  congregation  met  according  to  intimation,  Peter  Robertson  moderator,, 
when  an  act  of  the  State  of  New- York  for  incorporating  Congregations  and 
religious  societies  was  read  by  the  moderator.  Voted  that  it  vvas  expedient  tc 
incorporate  according  to  law. 

Cambridge,  March  10th,  1802. 

The  congregation  met  after  having  been  regularly  warned  according  to  law' 
by  the  Rev.  Mr.  John  Banks,  minister  ;  in  order  to  choose  trustees  so  as  to  be- 
come a  body  incorporate,  Peter  Robertson,  moderator.  Voted  the  number  to 
serve  as  trustees  is  six.  John  McClellan,  Alexander  Skellie,  elders  to  inspect 
the  votes. 


t. 


240 


James  Irvine,  AlexanJer  Skellie,  Sen'r.,  William  Edie,  Francis  McLane, 
William  Stevenson,  Hugh  Moor,  Trustees. 

The  name  that  this  Congregation  shall  be  known  by  after  this  date  is  the 
Associate  Congregation  of  Cambridge,  adhering  to  the  Associate  Presbytery 
of  Pennsylvania,  formerly,  now  the  Associate  Synod  of  North  America. 

Voted  to  send  a  representation  and  petition  to  the  Synod  in  order  that  they 
may  take  such  measures  as  they  shall  think  proper  to  settle  some  differences 
in  this  Congregation. 

Cambridge,  March  3d,  1803. 

After  the  meeting  was  opened  by  prayer,  and  W^iifiam  Edie  chosen  Mode- 
rator, and  Alexander  Skellie,  junr.,  chosen  Clerk,  William  Grahams  and  John 
JVlcClellan  Inspectors  of  the  votes  of  the  meeting.  James  Irvine  Chosen  to 
•fill  up  the  seat  he  was  formerly  in  as  trustee.  John  Eobertson  is  chosen  to 
fdl  the  seat  of  Alexander  Skellie  which  places  is  vacant  the  tenth  day  of 
March  instant. 

In  pursuance  of  us  as  witness  our  hands  and  seals. 

Cambridge,  March  8th,  1805. 

The  congregation  being  met  according  to  intimation  in  order  to  elect  two 
trustees  to  fill  up  the  places  of  William  Stevenson  and  Hugh  Moor  being  the 
third  class  whose  seats  become  vacant  the  sixteenth  of  this  instant.  Firstly, 
voted  that  John  McClellan  and  James  Edie  be  inspectors  of  votes;  second, 
voted  that  Hugh  Moor  shall  fill  up  his  seat  again,  fourthly  Voted  that  Alexan- 
der Livingston  fill  up  the  seat  of  William  Stevenson. 

This  given  under  our  hands  and  seals. 

Cambridge,  April  14th,  1809.. 

The  Congregation  met,  Alexr.  Livingston  Moderator.  Alexr.  Skillie,  Jr. 
Clark  for  the  present  meeting,  then  proceeded  to  choose  oflicers  for  managing 
the  affairs  of  the  Congregation  for  the  ensuing  year  which  were  as  follows : 

Robert  Oliver,  Manager  and  Treasurer. 

Alexander  Livmgston,  John  Robertson,  Samuel  Green,  John  Shiland,  Jr., 
Alexander  Skellie,  Jr.,  Managers. 

Cambridge,  May  29th,  181L 

The  members  of  this  Congregation  met,  according  to  a  previous  intimation 
from  the  pulpit,  and  after  a  sermon  by  the  Rev.  Alex.  Bullions  on  Mai.  II.,  7, 
«,nd  after  prayer,  they  chose  James  Hill  for  Moderator,  and  Robert  Oliver, 
•Clerk  for  the  meetmg.  Proposals  by  the  Rev.  Joseph  Shaw  for  laying  a 
foundation  toward  raising  a  ministerial  library  in  this  congregation  was  laid 
before  the  meeting.  A  motion  was  then  made  to  put  the  question  whether  or 
iiot  this  meeting  will  consent  to  raise  a  sum  of  money  for  the  foresaid  purpose. 
The  question  was  put  and  carried  in  the  affirmative,  and  next  voted  to  raise  it 
hy  subscription  for  this  time.  The  meeting  then  agreed  to  appoint  the  Rev. 
A'lex.  Bullions,  James  Hill,  William  Stevenson,  Herman  Van  Veckton  and 
Robert  Oliver,  to  be  managers  of  the  said  library,  and  adopted  the  following 
lules  and  regulations  concerning  it. 

Plan  and  regulations  of  the  ministerial  library  of  the  Associate  Congrega- 
tion of  Cambridge. 

The  Associate  Cono-regation  of  Cambridge  convened  on  due  notification 
(as  above  mentioned)  considering  that,  from  small  beginnings,  great  effects 
•often  follow,  and  believing  it  to  be  both  their  duty  and  interest,  that  their 
present  minister  and  his  successors  be  furnished  with  a  suitable  library,  do 
-cordially  and  thankfully  accept  of  the  donation  of  thirty-five  dollars  and  forty 
cents  from  the  Rev.  Joseph  Shaw,  to  assist  them  in  beginning  and  increasing 
•a  library  for  the  use  and  advantage  of  their  present  minister,  and  accordingly 


241 

agree  to  institute  one  for  tliis  purpose  ;  and  for  tlie  more  eflectual  accomplish- 
ment of  tlie  design  of  its  institution,  Resolve, 

1st.  That  it  is  denominated  the  Ministerial  library  of  the  Associate  Congre- 
gation of  Cambridge. 

2nd.  The  congregation  shall  annually  choose  five  of  their  members  of  which 
the  minister  shall  always  be  one,  and  in  case  of  a  vacancy  the  preacher  shall 
supply  his  place  who  shall  have  the  sole  power  of  choosing,  purchasing  and 
inspecting  the  books  and  of  managing  all  the  concerns  of  the  library. 

3rd.  These  five  managers  shall  elect  out  of  their  own  member  a  librarian 
and  treasurer  who  shall  keep  a  correct  catalogue  of  the  books  in  the  library 
and  shall  give  annually  to  the  Congregration  on  account  of  its  state,  and  of 
the  receipts  and  disbursements  of  money. 

4th.  The  congregation  shall  Annually  make  a  collection  of  Money  either 
on  a  sabbath  or  week  day,  on  which  a  sermon  shall  be  preached,  and  the 
managers  shall  use  their  diligence  in  procuring  donations  of  Money  or  Books, 
and  both  the  money  collected  and  given  shall  be  wholly  appropriated  for  the 
augmentation  of  the  library. 

5th.  None  of  the  books  shall  be  lent  to  any  except  to  students  of  divinity, 
residing  in  the  congregation,  but  shall  be  for  the  use  of  the  ministers,  and  if 
he  or  they  lose  or  injure  any  of  them  they  shall  pay  the  price  or  replace  it  by 
another  of  the  same  kind,  of  equal  value. 

6th.  The  library  shall  be  kept  constantly  in  the  manse,  when  there  is  a  set- 
tled minister  ;  and  during  a  vacancy,  the  managers  may  either  continue  it 
there  or  remove  it  to  another  place. 

7th.  If  in  divine  providence  a  large  party  leave  the  congregation,  the  libra- 
ry shall  remain  their  property  who  adhere  to  their  present  principles,  and  shall 
be  held  and  possessed  by  the  same  persons  who  hold  the  other  congregational 
property. 

8th.  That  a  subscription  pnper  be  immediately  circulated  through  the  con- 
gregation, and  the  names  of  subscribers  and  the  sums  subscribed  by  them,  be 
recorded,  and  the  money  added  to  that  given  by  Mr.  Shaw,  for  commencing 
the  library. 

9th,  That  the  five  memljers  before  mentioned  to  be  elected  managers,  shall 
continue  till  the  meeting  of  the  congregation  in  March,  1812,  when  the  an- 
nual election  shall  be  henceforth  held. 

Pursuant  to  publick  notice,  the  Associate  Congregation  of  Cambridge  met 
on  the  lolh  April,  1826;  the  meeting  was  opened  with  prayer  by  the  Rev. 
Alexr.  Bullions  ;  George  Lowrie  was  chosen  Moderator  ;  William  Stevenson, 
Treasurer  and  Clerk. 

The  following  resolutions  were  passed,  viz:  That  Wm.  McGeoch,  James 
McNaughton  and  Wm.  Stevenson  be  a  committee  to  take  advice  of  a  lawyer, 
concerning  the  title  papers  of  the  Congregation,  and  if  necessary,  to  make 
preparations  for  an  act  of  incorporation. 

Cambridge,  Nov.  21,  1826. 
The  Associate  Congregation  of  Cambridge  met  pursuant  to  publick  notice 
given  on  the  5th  day  of  the  present  month,  and  the  sabbath  next  ensuing,  by 
the  Rev.  Alexander  Bullions,  minister  of  said  Congregation,  being  15  days 
previous  to  this  date,  for  the  purpose  of  electing  Trustees  to  renew  the  corpo- 
ration in  said  Congregation.  The  meeting  was  opened  with  prayer  by  Mr. 
George  Lowrie,  who  was  also  chosen  Moderator.  John  McArthur,  Jun.  was 
chosen  Clerk,  fjro  tern,  and  John  McClelland  and  Edward  Lauderdale,  Inspec- 
tors of  Election — being  elders. 
31 


242 

Resolved,  That  the  Congregation  retain  tlie  name  as  formerly  taken,  Match 
IGtli,  1S02. 

Resolved,  Tliat  six  trustees  be  chosen,  and  that  the  following  persons  being 
regularly  elected,  serve  as  such  trustees,  viz  : 

Fisrt  Class.  Second  Class.  Third  Class. 

Francis  McLean,      I    John  Robertson,  Junr.,    I    George  Lowrie, 
Edward  Small.         j    William  Stevenson.        |    William  IVIcGeoch. 
Resolved,  That  this  meeting  be  adjournetl  till  the  2d  Tuesday  of  April  next, 

GEORGE  LOWRIE,  Moderator. 
John  McClelland,       )    j„      ,^,^,,. 
Edward  Lauderdale,  )         ' 

John  McArthur,  Junior,  Cleik,  pro  tempore. 

Pursuant  to  publick  Notice,  a  meeting  of  the  Associate  Congregation  of 
Cambridge  was  called  and  held  at  their  meeting  house,  on  the  26th  day  of 
December,  1831,  for  the  purpose  of  taking  into  consideration  the  propriety  of 
building  a  new  meeting  house,  and  a  full  meeting  being  convened  at  said 
Charch,  John  Ashton  -#as  called  to  the  Chair  as  Aioderator  of  said  meeting, 
and  George  Lowrie  for  Clerk,  pro  tern.  It  was  then  stated  to  the  congrega- 
tion, the  propriety  of  building  a  new  Church.  After  matters  being  fully  con- 
sidered, it  was  moved  and  seconded  that  we  proceed  to  build  a  new  churchy 
and  the  vote  was  carried  to  that  effect ;  to  build  a  new  brick  church  of  the 
following  dimensions,  seventy  feet  long  and  fifty  wide,  and  the  height  propor- 
tioned to  the  same  :  to  be  built  of  good  merchantable  Bricks,  and  good  mate- 
rials of  all  kinds.  Said  Building  to  be  worth  five  thousand  dollars  when  fin- 
ished, and  to  be  built  on  the  same  ground  the  yellow  meeting  house  now  stands- 
upon,  and  that  said  building  be  finished  by  the  first  day  of  November,  1833, 
under  the  care  and  inspection  of  the  trustees  of  said  congregation,. 

And  it  was  further  resolved  that  the  trustees  now  circulate  a  subscription 
paper  for  the  purpose  of  raising  the  money  to  build  said  Church,  and  furnish 
a  plan  of  said  building,  and  estimate  and  report  to  tlie  next  meeting  of  the 
congregation,  to  meet  on  the  13th  day  of  March  next.     Adjourned, 

The  Congregation  met  according  to  adjournment,  on  the  l3th  day  of  March, 
1832,  and  approved  of  their  former-  deed,  and  completed  the  subscription  list 
to  five  thousand  Dollars,  and  ordered  the  trustees  in  connection  wath  the  build- 
ing Committee  to  proceed  with  the  building :  said  committee  was  appointed 
at  the  previous  meeting,  viz:  George  Lourie,  G..W.  Robertson,  John  Robert- 
son, Wm.  McGeoch  and  Wm.  Stevenson,  and  as  they  had  been  instructed  to 
go  to  Troy  and  look  up  a  plan  for  said  Church,  report  that  they  had  done  so, 
and  agreed  with  Mr.  F.  McCray,  for  the  specifications.  It  was  understood 
that  the  biulding  committee  had  power  to  see  the  money  well  managed  that 
was  raised  by  subscription  for  building  the  Church,  and  said  Committee  shall 
have  power  to  make  contracts  and  superintend  the  said  building, 

July  12th,  1838. 
The  Associate  Congregation  of  Cambridge,  in  subordination  to  the  Associ- 
ate Synod  of  North  America,  being  duly  noliiled  on  the  previous  Sabbath, 
met  at  John  Robertson's,  tanner  ;  William  McGeoch  was  called  to  the  chair, 
and  William  Stevenson  chosen  Clerk.  The  meeting  was  then  opened  by 
prayer  by  the  Chairman,  It  was  moved  and  seconded  that  the  minutes  of  the 
Ass.  Presbytery  of  Cambridge  be  read.to  this  meeting.  It  shows  that  on  the  27th 
of  June  last,  the  Presbytery  does  not  recognize  Dr.  Bullions  and  the  part  of 
the  congregation  that  follows  him,  to  be  in  communion  with  the  Associate 


""""^m  243 

Presbytery  of  Cambridge,  as  will  be  seen  by  tbe  minutes.     It  was  moved  and 
seconded  the  following  resolutions  : 

Resolved,  That  this  Congregation  do  raise  by  subscription  the  money  to  pay 
the  supplies,  which  paper  was  subscribed  by  the  members  of  the  Congrega- 
tion, to  the  amount  of  $252. 

Resolved,  That  the  trustees  be  empowered  to  procure  the  Cambridge  Wo sh- 
ington  Academy,  for  a  place  to  preach  in,  and  if  it  can  not  be  obtained,  then 
some  other  place  for  meeting  in  for  the  present  year. 

Resolved,  That  a  copy  of  the  extracts  from  the  minutes  of  the  Associate 
Presbytery  of  Cambridge  be  read  to  this  meeting,  which  was  done,  and  the 
following  is  a  true  copy.  Extracts  from  the  minutes  of  Pby,  in  Salem,  June 
27th,  1838.  Mr.  James  Lourie  being  asked  of  Pby,  instructions  respecting 
their  dealings  with  Dr.  Bullions,  the  following  resolutions  were  adopted  : 

First:  Resolved,  That  Dr.  Bullions  cannot  be  restored  to  his  former  stand- 
ing with  this  Pby,  without  full  submission  to  the  decisions  of  Pby  and  Synod 
in  his  case. 

Secondly  :  That  Pby  cannot  recognize  any  of  the  members  of  the  Cam- 
bridge Congregation  who  adhere  to  Dr.  Bullions  in  his  non-submission,  as  in 
full  communion  and  good  standing  with  us,  or  entitled  to  membership  or  Church 
privileges  as  long  as  they  continue  in  their  present  course. 

Thirdly :  That  those  of  the  Associate  Congregation  of  Cambridge,  who  do 
not  adhere  to  nor  support  Dr.  Bullions  in  his  non-submission  to  the  courts,  but 
who  adhere  to  the  Pby  and  Synod  in  their  decisions  in  his  case,  be  and  are 
hereby  recognized  as  the  Congregation  organized  as  the  Associate  Congrega- 
tion of  Cambridge,  in  full  standing  with  this  Presbytery. 

A  copy  of  Pby's  minutes. 

A.  ANDERSON,  Pby  Clerk. 

I  hereby  certify  that  according  to  the  minutes  of  the  Associate  Pby  of  Cam- 
bridge, Dr.  Bullions  was  by  said  Pby,  deposed  from  the  office  of  the  Holy 
Ministry  and  the  Communion  of  the  Church,  on  the  12th  day  of  April,  1838, 
(at  South  Argyle  Church.) 

A.  ANDERSON,  Pbt/  Clerk. 

Tuesday,  Jany.  1st  1839. 
The  associate  congregation  of  Cambridge  in  Subordination  to  the  Associate 
Synod  of  North  America  being  duly  notified  three  several  Sabbaths  days  by 
their  Minister  George  M.  Hall,  previous  to  the  day  of  meeting.  JMet  at  the 
Cambridge  Washington  Academy  their  stated  place  of  worship.  Mr.  John 
Foster  was  called  to"  the  chair,  and  John  Robertson  Clerk  pro-tem.  It  was 
moved  and  seconded  that  Edward  Small  and  Wm.  McGeoch  Elders  be  the  in- 
spectors of  the  Election  for  new  trustees  to  be  chosen  at  this  meeting  to  fill  the 
seats  of  Messrs.  William  Robertson  and  James  Shiland  whose  terms  of  office 
expires  on  the  first  day  of  April  next.  After  the  elect^"on  was  finished  the 
Elders  reported  as  the  inspectors  of  said  election  that  William  McGeoch  and 
William  Robertson,  was  duly  elected  to  fill  the  first  class,  to  take  their  seats  on 
the  first  day  of  April  next.  Also  reported  that  James  Hoy  was  chosen  to  fill 
the  seat  of  James  Coulter  of  the  second  class  whose  seat  was  vacated,  for  ab- 
senting himself  from  the  meetings  of  the  trustees  and  from  public  ordinance 
as  dispensed  by  the  Ass't  Pby  of  Cambridge  in  said  Congregation  and  for  neg- 
lecting to  contribute  any  thing  for  the  support  of  ordinances  in  the  same.  Also 
reported  that  John  Robertson  and  Peter  McArthur  of  the  third  class,  were  duly 
elected  to  fill  the  seats  in  room  of  Peter  Hill  and  Robert  McClellan  whose 
places  has  become  vacated,  for  the  same  delinquencies  for  which  James  Coul- 
ter was  removed  from  office. 


244 

Resolved,  That  ihcre  bo  collectors  nppointoil  in  each  (juartcr  of  the  congre- 
gation as  formerly. 

Resolved,  Tliat  James  Arnot,  Isaac  Ashton,  Ivlward  Small  and  John  Arnot 
be  the  said  collectors  for  the  ensuing  year.  The  above  minutes  were  read  to 
the  meeting,  and  approved  of  by  their  vote,  the  meeting  then  adjourned. 

JOHN  ROBERTSON,  Clerk,  pro-tem. 

The  above  minutes  was  read  corrected  and  approved  at  the  annual  meeting 
of  said  congregation  for  1842. 

Tuesday,  January  7th,  1840. 
The  Associate  Congregation  of  Cambridge  in  subordination  to  the  Associ- 
ate Synod  of  North  America  being  duly  notified  three  Several  Sabbath  days 
by  their  minister  supplying  this  vacancy.  Mr.  D.  R.  DeFreest  and  previous 
to  the  day  of  meeting  the  congregation  met  at  the  Cambridge  Washington 
Academy  their  stated  place  of  Worship.  Mr.  John  Foster  was  chosen  their 
Moderator  and  opened  the  meeting  by  prayer.  It  was  moved  and  seconded 
that  William  Stevenson  their  former  Clerk  be  continued.  It  was  carried  by 
the  vote  and  consent  of  all  present.  It  was  then  moved  and  seconded  and  vot- 
ed that  Edward  Small  and  William  McGeoch  Elders  be  the  inspectors  of  the 
Election  for  new  trustees  to  be  chosen  at  this  meeting  to  fill  the  seats  of  James 
Hoy  and  William  Stevenson  of  the  second  class  whose  seats  will  be  vacant  on 
the  first  day  of  April  next.  After  the  Election  was  over  the  Elders  reported 
as  the  inspectors  of  said  Election  that  James  Hoy  and  William  Stevenson  was 
duly  elected  to  fill  the  second  class,  to  take  their  seats  upon  the  first  day  of 
April  next.  Also  reported  that  the  legal  notice  for  the  Annual  meeting  of  the 
congregation  and  the  notice  for  election  of  trustees  was  duly  read  three  several 
Sabbaths  previous  to  the  day  of  the  annual  meeting  of  said  Congregation. 
It  was  moved  and  seconded  that  the  collectors  that  was  in  last  year  be  the  col- 
lectors for  the  present  year,  viz:  This  vote  was  carried  without  any  opposing 
vote  against  it.  The  collectors  are  as  follows,  viz:  Edward  Small,  James 
Arnot,  John  Arnot,  Isaac  Ashton.  The  business  above  being  finished  it  was 
then  agreed  this  meeting  stand  ajourned  till  the  first  Tuesday  of  January^ 
1841.  WILLIAM  STEVENSON,  Clerk. 

Tuesday,  January  5th,  1841. 

The  Associate  Congregation  of  Cambridge,  in  subordination  to  the  Associ- 
ate Pby  of  Cambridge  and  the  Associate  Synod  of  North  America,  being  du- 
ly notified  three  several  Sabbath  days  by  their  minister  supplying  in  said  con- 
gregation, Rev'd.  David  R.  DeFreest,  previous  to  the  day  of  meeting,  met  at 
the  Cambridge  VVashinglon  Academy,  their  stated  place  of  worship,  John  Fos- 
ter was  chosen  Moderator,  and  William  Hall  was  appointed  Clerk  pro  (em. 
The  meeting  was  opened  with  prayer  by  the  moderator.  The  meeting  then 
proceeded  to  the  election  of  two  trustees  to  fill  the  seats  of  John  Robertson  and 
Peter  McArthur  of  the  third  class  whose  terms  of  office  expire  on  the  first  day 
of  April  next.  William  McGeoch  and  Edward  Small,  Elders,  were  appointed 
Inspectors  of  said  Election.  After  the  election  was  over  the  Inspectors  repor- 
ted that  John  Robertson  and  Peter  McArthur  were  duly  elected  as  such  trus- 
tees.    Certificates  were  prepared,  duly  signed  and  sent  to  said  trustees. 

On  motion  resolved,  that  the  sum  of  thirty  dollars  be  paid  as'  a  donation  to 
the  trustees  of  the  Cambridge  Academy  for  the  use  of  the  upper  room  of  said 
Academy,  for  the  term  of  one  year  from  the  first  of  last  June. 

On  motion  resolved,  that  a  committee  of  two  be  appointed  to  report  to  the 
trustees  of  Cambridge  Academy  the  amount  of  their  donation,  and  also  that 
said  committee  be  insir acted  to  present  the  thanks  of  said  congregation  to  said 


245 

trustees,  and  to  request  that  the  room  in  the  Academy  be  at  the  service  of  said 
congregation  as  often  during  the  week  as  would  be  practicable. 

Resolved,  that  John  Robertson,  and  Edward  Small,  be  appointed  said  com- 
mittee. 

Resolved,  that  Edward  Small  be  added  to  the  committee  to  attend  to  the 
Chancery  suit. 

On  motion  resolved,  that  the  sum  of  three  hundred  dollars  be  raised  on  the 
new  subscription  for  one  year  or  at  that  ratio  until  we  get  a  minister  settled 
among  us,  and  if  no  such  settlement  takes  place  then  said  S300  for  one  year. 

Resolved,  that  Isaac  Ashton,  Edward  Small,  Robert  McArthur,  Robert  Til- 
ford  and  William.  I.  Graham  be  appointed  Collectors  for  one  year. 

On  motion  resolved,  that  the  trustees  be  appointed  a  committee  to  inquire 
into  the  state  of  certain  Bible  funds  of  Mr.  William  Stevenson,  the  former 
treasurer  of  said  funds,  and  certain  book  funds,  and  appoint  a  treasurer  and  re- 
port at  the  next  meeting. 

On  motion  resolved,  that  John  Robertson  be  appointed  treasurer  and  clerk 
of  the  congregation  in  room  of  William  Stevenson. 

Adjourned  until  the  first  Tuesday  of  January  next. 

JOHN  FOSTER,  Chairman. 
WILLLOI  HALL,  pro  tem  Clerk. 

Cambridge,  Tuesday  January  4th.  1S42. 

The  Associate  Congregation  of  Cambridge  in  subordination  to  the  Associate 
Pby  of  Cambridge  and  the  Associate  Synod  of  North  America  "  being  duly 
notified  three  several  Sabbath  days  by  their  ministers,  viz  :  Mr.  Archibald 
Reid  the  first  Sabbath,  Rev.  James  P.  Millar  the  second,  and  the  Rev.  James 
IVIartin  the  third — supplying  in  said  congregation — met  at  the  Cambridge 
Washington  Academy-  Chose  John  Foster  moderator  and  appointed  Wm.  L 
Graham  clerk  pro  tem.  After  the  meeting  was  opened  with  prayer  by  the  mod- 
erator, the  meeting  proceeded  to  read  and  correct  the  minutes  of  the  annual 
meeting  of  January  1st,  1839,  which  being  corrected  was  approved  by  a  vote 
of  the  meeting.  Also,  the  minutes  of  the  annual  meetings  of  January  7th, 
1840,  and  of  January  5th,  1841,  were  read  and  approved  by  a  vote  of  the 
meeting.  Also,  read  and  approved  the  minutes  of  the  followings  of  said  con's 
gregation,  to  wit,  one  bearing  date  on  Oct.  2Sth,  1840,  another  on  July  19th, 
1841  and  another  on  October  5th,  1841. 

The  above  minute  comes  in  order  on  the  book  before  the  minute  recording 
the  election  of  Trustees,  as  will  be  seen  by  reference  to  the  book. 

The  meeting  then  proceeded  to  the  election  of  Trustees.  On  motion  resol- 
ved, that  William  McGeoch  and  John  Robertson,  Elders,  be  the  inspectors  of 
said  election  of  Trustees.  After  the  election  was  closed,  the  inspectors  report' 
ted  that  William  McGeoch  and  William  Robertson  were  duly  reelected  as  trus* 
tees  to  fill  the  seats  of  the  first  class,  and  also  that  John  Foster  was  duly  elect* 
ed  to  fill  the  seat  of  James  Hoy  (removed)  of  the  second  class. 


IN    CHANCERY: 

B  E  F  o  K  li  T  II K  Chancellor 


William  Stevenson,  and  others, 

vs. 
Alexander  Bullions,  and  others. 


Statement  of  the  Exhibits  in  this  cause,  produced  on  the  part  of  theDefend- 
;ants  and  marked  by  the  Examiner,  James  Gibson,  Esq. 

"  EXHIBIT  A." 
"  A  book  of  Church  Government  and  Discipline,  acrreed  upon  and  enacted 
by  the  Associate    Synod  of  North  America,  at  Pittsburgh,  June    6th,  1817." 
.(Proved,  fol.  29,  of  the  deposition  of  Thomas  Goodwillie.     In  the  testimony 
this  Exhibit  is  commonly  alluded  toby  calling  it  the  "  Book  of  Discipline.") 

"EXHIBIT  B." 
"  Resolutions  passed  by  the  Associate  Presbytery  of  Cambridge,  on  the 
coming  in  of  the  report  of  Committee  on  the  paper  handed  in  by  Dr.  Bul- 
lions at"  &c.,  and  the  Requisitions  and  Answers.  (Proved,  fol.  146,  of  the 
deposition  of  Rev.  D.  Gordon*)  This  Exhibit  is  contained  in  Exhibit  Q,  on 
part  of  Complainants. 

"EXHIBIT  C." 
"  Printed  minutes  of  the  Synod  of  North  America,  for  the  year   1830." 
(Proved,  fol.  199,  of  the  Rev.  D.  Gordon's  Deposition.) 

"EXHIBIT  D." 
"  Printed  minutes  of  Synod  of  North  America  for  the  year  1832."     (Prov- 
ed, fol.  200,  of  the  Rev.  D.  Gordon's  Deposition.) 

"EXHIBIT  E." 
"Printed  minutes  of  the   Commission  of  Synod  for  the  trial  of  causes  be- 
tween the  Associate  Presbytery  of  Cambridge  and  Dr. Bullions."  (Proved,  fol. 
200  of  the  Rev,  D.  Gordon's  Deposition.) 

"EXHIBIT  F." 
"  A  citation  to  the  Rev.  David  G.  Bullions  to  appear  before  the  Cambridge 
Presbytery.     (Proved  in  fol.  59,  of  Rev.  A.  Stark's  Deposition,)  and  is  as  fol- 
lows : 
Mr.  David  Bullions — ^Dear  Sir  : 

At  Hebron,  August  3d,  1842,  a  deed  was  passed  by  the  Associate  Presby- 
tery of  Cambridge,  according  to  the  following  minute,  viz  :  Whereas  it  is 
credibly  reported  that  Mr.  David  Bullions  has  accepted  a  call  to  a  pastoral 
charge  in  connection  with  an  association  of  men,  under  deposition  by  the  Associ- 
fite  Church,  thereby  abandoning  his  profession  and  violating  his  vows  at  licen- 
sure. Presbytery  resolve  to  cite  him  to  appear  before  them  at  their  meeting,  at 
Salem,  on  the  3d  Trursday  (18th)  of  August,  (inst.)  at  11  o'clock,  A.  M.,  to 
answer  for  his  conduct,  and  to  suspend  his  licensure,  which  they  hereby  do, 
till  his  case  be  tried.  You  are  hereby  cited  according  to  the  above  minute, 
fail  not  to  attend. 

Witnesses,  Rev.  Archibald  Reid,  John  Tilford. 

By  order  of  Pby,  A.  ANDERSON,  Pby  Clerk. 

Hebron,  Aug.  3d,  1842. 

P.  S.  I  hope  you  will  remember  that  having  received  your  licensure  from 
the  Associate  Church,  and  being  in  the  bounds  of  the  Associate  Presbytery  of 
Cambridge,  you  are  accountable  to  them.  A-'  A. 


ON    THE    PART    OF    THE    COMPLAINANTS, 

TAKEN    BY  COMJIISSIONERS,    BY  VIRTUE    OF  A    CORTMISSION,  UPON    INTERROGATORIES 
AND  CROSS-INTERROGATORIES  ANNEXES  THERETO.- 


COMMISSION 


The  People  of  the  State  of  JVeiv   York, 

To  John  L.. Go w,.  James  Watson  and  John  H.  Ewing,  Esqr.  of  Washington, . 
Wasnington  County,  State  of  Pennsylvania.     Know  ye,  that  we  having  full 
faith  in  your  prudence  and  competency,  have  appointed  you  or  any  one  or  more 
of  you  commissioners,  and  by  these  presents  do  authorize  you  or   any  one  or 
more  of  you  to  examine  James  Ramsey,  D.  D.  Professor  of  Hebrew  in  Jeffer-- 
son  College ;  James  Martin  Professor  of  Hebrew  ami  Didactic  Theology  as  a- 
bove ;  Thomas  Beveridge,  D.  D.  Professor  of  Ecclesiastical  History  and  Bibli-- 
cal  Literature  as  above  ;  and.   Alexander  T.  McGill,  Professor   of  Ecclesias- 
tical   History    in  the    Western  Theological   Seminary  of    the  Presbyterian 
Church  in  Alleghany,  Alleghany  County  Pennsylvania,  as  witnesses  in  a  cause 
pending  in  our  Court  of  Chancery,  wherein  William  Stevenson  and  others  are" 
Complainants,  and  Alexander  Bullions  and  others  are  Defendants  ;  on  the  part 
of  the  Complainants  on  oath  to  be  by  you  administered  upon  interrogatories  ■ 
annexed  to  this  commission  ;  to  take   and  certify  the  depositions  of  the  wit-- 
nesses  and  return  the  same  according  to  the  directions  hereto  annexed. 

Witness,. Reuben  H.. Walworth,  Chancellor  of  our  said  State,  at  the  City 
of  Albany,  the  twenty-eighth  day  of  November,  in  the  year  of  our  Lord  one-' 
thousand  eight  hundred  and  forty  two. 

JOHN  M.  DAVISON,  Register. 

J.  Crary,  Sol'r  for  Compl'ts. 

The  execution  of  this  commission  appears  in  certain  schedules  hereto   an- 
nexed. 

John  L.  Gow,  )    ^         .    . 
Jas.  .Watson.  }    Commissioners. 

DIRECT  INTERROGATORIES  BY  COMPLAINANTS. 


Interrogatories  to  be  administered  to  witnesses  to  be  produced  sworn  and  ex°- 
amined  in  a  certain  cause  now  pending  in  the  court  of  Chancery  for  the  State* 
-of  New- York  wherein  William  Stevenson,  William  Robertson,  William  Mc— 
Geoch,  Edward  Small,  James  Mc Arthur,  John  Mc Arthur,  Robert  Mc Arthur,, 
Peter  McArthur,  George  Small,  James  Arnot,  John  Arnot,  Edward  Cook,  John' 
Robertson,  Thomas  McMorris,  James  Hoy,  John  McDoul,  Isaac  Ashton,  John^-- 
Foster  and  William  Livingston,  are  complainants  and  Alexander  Bullions, , 
James  Coulter,  James  Shiland,  Robert  McCIellan  and  Peter  Hill  together  with: 
the  Associate  Congregation  of  Cambridge  of  the  County  of  Washington  and' 
State  of  New- York  adhering  to  the  principles  of  the  Associate  Presbytery  of. 
Pennsylvania  formerly,  now  the  Associate  Synod  of  North  America  are  defend^- 
ants  under  a  commission  issued  out  of  such  court  directed  to  John  L.. Gow,. 
James  Watson  and  John  H.  Erving,  Esqrs.  of  Washington,  Washington  Coun- 
ty Pennsylvania,  commissioners  on  the  part  of  the  Complainants, 


L>1S 

First  Inlorroc:.ttory — Wlint  is  your  name,  occupation  and  |)larc  of  rcsitloncct 
Seoond  Jnlenoj^atory — Do  you  know  the  i)artic's  Coni])laiMants  and  Defend- 
ants in  tlie  title  of  these  interrogatories  named,  or  any  or  either  of  tliem  and 
for  how  long-  liave  you  known  them?  derlarc  the  truth  fully. 

Third  Interrogat(My — Are  you  now  and  how  long  have  you  been  a  rfiinister 
of  the  Associate  Church? 

Fourth  Interrogatory — Arc  you  or  not  ac(juainted  with  the  liistory,  faith, 
practice,  doctrines  and  government  of  the  Asssociate  Church,  referred  to  in 
the  Complainants'  liill  of  complaint  annexed  to  these  interrogatories,  and 
if  so,  declare  the  truth  fully  ? 

Fifth  Interrogatory — Is  or  not  the  history  of  the  Associate  Church,  as  sta- 
ted in  the  said  bill  of  complaint,  correct  ?  Declare  the  trtJth  according  to  the 
best  of  your  knowledge,  remembrance,  information  and  belief. 

Sixth  Interrogatory — Is  or  not  the  Associate  Church  governed  l)y  a  Presby- 
terian form  of  Church  government,  and  its  members  bound  to  submission  and 
obedience  on  pain  of  expulsion?  Declare  the  truth  and  your  knowledge 
therein. 

Seventh  Interrogatory — Are  you  or  not  acquainted  with  the  Church  ju- 
dicatories stated  in  the  said  bill  of  complaint?  and  if  so,  are  they  cor- 
rectly stated  therein  ?  and  wliat  do  they  consist  of?  and  are  or  are  not  their 
powers  and  duties  correctly  stated  and  set  forth  in  the  said  bill  of  complaint, 
so  far  as  they  are  therein  stated  ? 

Eighth  Interrogator}- — Are  or  are  not  the  doctrines,  government,  discipline, 
faith  and  practice  of  the  Associate  Church  correctly  set  forth  in  the  said  bill 
of  complaint,  so  far  as  therein  stated? 

Ninth  Interrogatory — Was  you  or  not  a  member  of  the  Associate  Synod  of 
North  America  in  1S3S,  and  present  when  Dr.  Bullions'  case  came  before  said 
Synod  ? 

Tenth  Interrogatory —Are  you  or  not  acquainted  with  the  minutes  of  the 
Presbytery  of  Cambridge  in  the  case  of  Dr.  Iiullions,  before  said  Presbyterj', 
from  Oct.  5th-,  1837,  when  he  was  suspended,  to  April  12th,  1S3S,  when  he 
was  deposed,  and  did  you  hear  them  read  in  Synod  when  his  deposition  was 
•confirmed  ? 

Eleventh  Interrogatory — Is  it  or  not  necessary  to  prove  a  contempt  of  court 
or  an  offence  committed  in  the  presence  of  the  Court,  or  may  the  court  pro- 
ceed upon  their  own  knowledge? 

Twelfth  Interrogatory — Does  it  or  not  appear  from  the  minutes  of  said  Pres- 
bytery, that  they  resolved  to  rebuke  Dr.  Bullions  without  first  having  ascer- 
tained his  offence  ? 

Thirteenth  Interrogatory — What  is  the  nature  and  effect  of  a  protest  and 
appeal,  and  when  ought  i-t  to  stop  all  further  proceedings  in  the  case  appealed 
from,  according  to  the  discipline  of  the  Associate  Church  ? 

Fourteenth  Interrogatory — In  what  instances  may  a  court  lawfully  proceed 
m  the  trial  and  issuing  of  a  case,  notwithstanding  a  protest  and  appeal  has 
been  taken  against  a  resolution  to  rebuke  or  suspend,  and  what  can  the  court 
still  proceed  to  do,  (if  the  case  of  a  minister)  and  if  still  contumacious  and 
impenitent,  how  high  a  censure  could  they  inflict  ? 

Fifteenth  Interrogatory — Was  -or  not  there  any  protest  and  appeal  brought 
by  Dr.  Bullions  before  Synod,  and  what  statement  if  any,  was  made  by  the 
Presbytery  of  Cambridge,  and  what  admission,  if  any,  was  made  by  Dr.  Bul- 
lions relative  to  his  having  fallen  or  not  fallen  from  all  or  any  of  his  protests 
and  appeals  ? 

Sixteenth  Interrogatory — How  did  this   case  come  into  Synod,  and  is  or  not 


2m 

the  manner  fully  set  forth  in  the  minutes  of  Synod  for  the  year  1838,  and  at 
that  time  under  the  circumstances,  in  what  if  in  any  other  way  could  the  case 
have  been  taken  up  by  Synod  ? 

Seventeenth  Interrogatory — Did  or  not  the  Presbytery  of  Cambridge  act 
legally  and  in  accordance  with  the  discipliiie  and  practice  of  the  Associate 
Church  in  proceeding  to  the  higher  censures  of  suspension  and  deposition  in 
Dr.  Bullions'  case  notwithstanding  his  protest  and  appeal  against  their  deci- 
sion to  rebuke  and  the  protest  not  admitted  in  the  first  instance  ? 

Eighteenth  Interrogatory — According  to  the  government,  practice  and  dis- 
cipline of  the  Associate  Church,  is  or  is  not  each  Church  court  the  Judge  of 
the  competency  of  its  own  members,  and  can  or  cannot  the  court  the  members 
acting  from  their  own  knowledge,  without  other  testimony,  exclude  from  vo- 
ting in  any  matter  before  the  court  any  member  or  members  for  relationship, 
or  partiality? 

Nineteenth  Interrogatory- — Was  it  or  not  improper  to  connect  Messrs.  Good- 
willie  and  Pringle,  in  the  same  resolution  Avhen  neither  were  competent 
Judges? 

Twentieth  Interrogatory — Did  or  did  not  Dr.  Bullions,  or  any  of  the  mem- 
bers of  the  Presbytery  of  Cambridge  who  were  prevented  voting  in  the  Doc- 
tor's case,  protest  and  appeal  against  their  exclusion  or  carry  this  decision  of 
Presbytery  before  Synod  for  review  ? 

Twenty-first  Interrogatory^ — Is  a  member  of  Presbytery  competent  to  sit  in 
Judgment  and  vote  upon  the  trial  of  any  one  on  whose  case  he  has  previously 
formed  and  expressed  an  opinion  either  as  to  his  guilt  or  innocence  ? 

Twenty-second  Interrogatory — Whether  or  not  can  any  thing  not  objected 
to  in  Presbytery,  nor  appealed  from  to  Synod,  be  a  ground  of  objection  else- 
where, according  to  the  law  and  practice  of  the  Associate  Church? 

Twenty-third  Interrogatory — Was  it  or  was  it  not  any  offence  if  any  what 
for  Dr.  Bullions  to  make  the  charges  he  did  against  some  member  or  members 
of  the  Cambridge  Presbytery,  on  the  fifth  Oct.  1837,  according  to  their  min- 
utes, and  when  required  by  Presbytery  to  give  the  names,  refused  to  do  so,  de- 
ny his  words  and  say  Presbytery  might  censure  him  till  they  were  tired? 

Twenty-fourth  Interrogatory — Did  this  or  not  necessarily  disqualify  such 
member  or  members  thus  not  named,  from  sitting  and  voting  in  his  case 
when  he  was  called  by  PresbA'terjr  to  ansvv-er  for  such  slander  and  contempt, 
or  would  they  be  disqualified  from  so  doing,  when  named  by  Dr.  Bullion's? 

Twenty-fifth  Intf>rrogatory — Was  Dr.  Bullions'  declinature  of  the  authority 
of  the  Presbytery  of  Cambridge  a  warrantable  or  an  unwarrantable  declina- 
ture, according  to  the  discipline  of  the  Associate  Church? 

Twentjr-sixth  Interrogatory — Is  or  is  not  an  unwarrantable  declinature,  a 
degree  of  contumacy,  Avhich  may  warrantably  be  censured  with  deposition, 
according  to  the  government,  discipline  and  practice  of  the  Associate  Clmrch? 

Twenty-seventh  Interrogatory- — Was  or  not  Dr.  Bullions,  and  his  Congrega- 
tion, bound  to  submit  to  the  decisions  of  suspension,  and  deposition  by  his 
Presbytery  against  him,  until  reversed,  or  was  he  not  bound  to  submit,  till  af- 
ter this  deed  was  confirmed  by  Synod;  or  is  he  bound  at  all  to  submit  accord* 
rng  to  his  ordination  vows,  and  the  principles  and  discipline  of  the  Associate 
Church,  and  the  word  of  God? 

Twenty-eighth  Interrogatory — According  to  the  law  and  discipline  of  the 
Associate  Church  as  often  as  parties  submit  their  grievances  to  the  decisions  of 
the  Synod,  whether  upon  appeal  from  a  Presbytery  or  otherwise,  is  or  is  not 
the  decision  of  that  body  final  and  conclusive  upon  the  parties,  and  also  on 
the  whole  Associate  Church  ? 
32 


250 

Twenty-ninth  Interrogatory — Is  it  or  not  according  to  the  discipline  of  the 
Associate  Church  to  depose  a  minister  in  liis  absence  if  he  refuse  or  neglect 
to  attend  after  legal  citation  ? 

Thirtieth  Interrogatory — Is  it  or  not  required  by  the  discipline  of  said  church, 
in  all  cases,  to  give  three  citations,  especially  if  the  accused  expressly  refused 
to  attend,  or  that  ten  days  should  elapse  between  such  citation  ? 

Thirty-first  Interrogatory — What,  if  any  thing  was  Dr.  Bullions  and  his 
congregation  and  the  whole  church  bound  to  in  respect  to  submitting  to  the 
decisions  of  Synod  in  his  case,  whatever  his  or  their  conscientious  belief  might 
be  witli  respect  to  the  justice  of  it  ? 

Thirty-second  Interrogatory — Is  it  or  is  it  not  true,  as  stated  by  Andrew 
Stark,  that  there  was  no  evidence  before  the  Presbytery  of  Cambridge  against 
Dr.  Bullions  ? 

Thirty-third  Interrogatory — Is  it  or  is  it  not  true,  as  stated  by  Andrew 
Stark,  that  neither  Dr.  Bullions  nor  his  congEegation  were  bound  by  the  deci- 
sion of  Synod  in  his  case  ? 

Thirty-fourth  Interrogatory — Is  it  or  not  true,  as  represented  by  Andrew 
Stark,  that  the  principles  of  the  Associate  Church  obliged  Dr.  Bullions  to  con- 
tinue to  preach  in  the  Associate  Church  under  his  protest,  notwithstanding  the 
decision  of  Synod  against  him  upon  his  own  opinion  that  such  decision  was 
wrong  ? 

Thirty-fifth  Interrogatory — What  is  the  nature  of  a  protest  taken  against 
the  decision  of  Synod  the  highest  court  in  the  chiu'ch  ? 

Thirty-sixth  Interrogatory — Was  or  was  not  the  protest  of  Dr.  Bullions,  as 
appears  in  the  printed  minutes  of  the  Synod  of  June,  1S39,  (pages  23  and  24,) 
any  thing  more  than  a  simple  protest,  and  if  any  thing  more,  what  was  it  ? 

Thirty-seventh  Interrogatory — It  is  represented  by  Andrew  Stark,  that  it  was 
considered  an  honor,  in  tli'e  seceders  of  the  16th  century,  to  protest  agaiast  the 
decision  of  Synod,  and  continue  to  exercise  their  ministry  under  their  protest^ 
and  thus  vindicate  the  word  of  God — Is  this  or  not  the  case  of  Dr.  Bullions  ? 
Thirty-eighth  Interrogatory — Did  or  did  not  Synod,  as  stated  by  Andrew 
Stark,  depart  from  all  the  usages  and  practices  of  the  Associate  Church  in 
their  decision  on  the  case  of  Dr.  Bullions  ? 

Thirty-ninth  Interrogatory — Did  or  did  not  the  Synod  depart  from  any  of  the 
usages  and  practices  of  the  Associate  Church  in  their  decision  on  the  case  of 
Dr.  Bullions  ? 

Fortieth  Interrogatory — Did  or  did  not  the  Synod,  as  represented  by  An- 
drew vStark,  virtually  abrogate  or  set  aside  the  right  of  protest,  and  appeal  by 
their  decision  in  Dr.  Bullions's  case  ? 

Forty-first  Interrogatory — Was  or  was  not  protesting  and  appealing  the  al- 
ledged  offence  for  which  Dr.  Bullions  was  suspended  and  afterwards  deposed 
as  represented  by  Andrew  Stark  ? 

Forty-second  Interrogatory — Was  or  was  not  the  pastoral  relation  between 
Dr.  Bullions  and  his  congregation  justly  resolved,  according  to  the  word  of  God 
and  the  standards  of  the  Associate  Church  by  the  Associate  Synod  in  the 
confirmation  of  his  deposition  by  Presbytery  ? 

Forty-third  Interrogatory — Was  it  or  was  it  not  any,  and  if  any,  what  ofTence 
in  his  congregation  to  employ  Dr.  Bullions  as  their  minister  after  he  was  de- 
posed, and  his  pastoral  relation  to  them  dissolved  ? 

Forty-fourth  Interrogatory — Was  it  or  was  it  not  a  profanation  of  the  ordi- 
nance of  Christ,  and  an  abjuring  and  repudiating  the  form  of  Presbyterian 
Church  government  and  the  authority  of  the  Church  Courts  for  a  congregation 
thus  to  employ  a  deposed  minister,  and  are  they  or  not,  by  so  doing,  e([ually 
transgressors  with  him  ? 


251 

Forty-fifth  Interrogatory — Was  it  or  was  it  not  a  Lreacli  of  the  vows  they 
came  under  when  they  joined  the  church,  and  of  the  implied  compact  they 
entered  into  when  they  became  members  of  the  congregation  as  a  congrega- 
tion under  the  care  and  inspection  of  the  Associate  Church,  and  a  fraud  prac- 
ticed upon  those  of  the  congregation  who  feel  bound  by  their  solemn  vows,  by 
the  law  of  God  and  of  the  church  to  adhere  to  their  former  principles,  and  be 
subordinate  to  the  lawful  authority  of  the  church  to  which  they  had  professed 
to  belong  ? 

Forty-sixth  Interrogatory — Are,  or  are  not.  Dr.  Bullions  and  those  who  ad- 
here to  him  still  in  good  standing  in  the  Associate  Church,  or  can  they,  or  can 
they  not  be  admitted  to  fellowship  in  said  Church,  according  to  its  principles 
while  they  continue  in  their  present  course  ? 

Forty-seventh  Interrogatory — What,  if  anything  did  Dr.  Bullions'  protest  or 
declinature  taken  against  the  decision  of  the  Synod  confirming  his  deposition 
give  him  a  right  to  do  in  respect  to  preaching  or  enjoying  any  privileges  in 
the  Church  ? 

Forty-eighth  Interrogatory — In  what  standing,  if  any,  did  Mr.  Erskine  and 
others  still  continue  in  the  established  church  of  Scotland,  after  they  were  de- 
posed by  that  church  ? 

Forty-ninth  Interrogatory — State  the  difference  between  the  cases  of  Dr. 
Bullions  and  Mr.  Erskine  if  any? 

Fifty-third  Interrogator}- — What  if  any  is  the  right  and  duty  of  Spiod  as 
often  as  the  Pastoral  connexion  between  the  minister  and  congregation  is  dis- 
solved by  Presbytery  and  confirmed  by  Synod,  in  respect  to  appointing  such 
commissioners  when  divisions  or  difficulties  exist  to  heal  such  divisions  and 
reconcile  such  difficulties  among  the  members  of  the  congregation  ? 

Fifty-fourth  Interrogatory — What  if  anything,  is  the  duty  of  such  congre- 
gation and  their  trustees  in  respect  to  receiving  such  commissioners  and  open- 
ing to  them  the  doors  of  their  church  to  afford  them  such  facilities  of  commu- 
nication to  and  with  the  church  and  congregation  as  will  enable  such  commis- 
sioners to  carry  into  effect  the  benevolent  and  charitable  intentions  of  Synod 
towards  such  congregation  ? 

Sixty-second  Interrogatory — Was  it  or  not,  consistent  with  the  powers  in- 
vested in  Presbyteries  for  the  Associate  Presbytery  of  Cambridge  to  pass  the 
deed  in  Exhibit  K,  here  following  set  forth. 

IN  CHANCERY. 

Before  the  Chancellor. 


William  StevensoN;  et  al. 

vs. 
Alexander   Bullions,  et  al. 


Exhibit  "K,"  on  part  of  Complainants  in  the  above  entitled  cause,  produced 
and  marked  Oct.  22d,  1841.  Before  me  JAS.  GIBSON, 

Examiner  in  CLancery. 

EXHIBIT  "  K." 

Extracts  from  the  minutes  of  Presbytery,  Salem,  June  27th,  1838.  "  Mr. 
James  Lourie  from  the  committee  of  the  congregation  of  Cambridge,  reques- 
ted instruction  from  Presbytery  with  respect  to  their  dealings  with  Dr.  Bullions." 

"  In  connexion  with  this  request  these  resolutions  were  proposed,  discussed 
and  unanimously  were  adopted,  viz: — 

1st.  Resolved,  That  Dr.  Bullions  cannot  be  restored  to  his  former  standing 


252 

with  the  Presbytery,  without  a  full  submission  to  the  decisions  of  Presbytery 
and  Synod  in  his  case. 

2d,  That  Presbytery  cannot  recof^nize  any  of  tlic  members  of  Cambridge 
Conrrregation  who  adhere  to  Dr.  liullions  in  his  non-submission, as  in  full  com- 
munion and  good  standing  with  us,  or  entitled  to  the  privileges  of  church 
membership  as  long  as  they  continue  in  their  present  course. 

3rd,  That  those  of  the  Associate  Congregation  of  Cambridge  who  do  not 
adhere  to  nor  support  Dr.  Bullions  in  his  non-submission,  but  who  adhere  to 
the  Presbytery  and  Synod  in  their  decisions  in  his  case,  be  and  hereby  are 
recognized  as  the  organized  Associate  CongTen-ation  of  Cambridge. 

Signed,  A.  ANDERSON,  Pby.  Clk:' 

I  certify  the  within  to  be  a  true  copy  of  Exhibit  K,  on  part  of  the  Complain- 
ants in  this  cause. 

JAS.  GIBSON,  Examiner  in  Chy. 

Sixty-third  Interrogatory — What  did  this  deed  of  the  Presbytery  in  Exhibit 
K,  authorize  the  members  of  the  session  who  continued  subordinate,  to  do  in 
respect  to  the  other  members  of  session  and  congregation  of  Cambridge,  who 
were  insubordinate  ? 

Sixty-fourth  Interrogatory — What  were  this  session,  thus  recognized  by 
their  Presbytery  bound  to  do,  according  to  the  principles  of  the  Associate 
Church,  and  the  powers  vested  in  sessions,  after  this  deed  of  Presbytery  wag 
passed  in  respect  to  their  authority  to  call  before  them  any  member  or  mem- 
bers either  of  session  or  congregation,  who  were  charged  with  insubordination 
by  adhering  to  Dr.  Bullions,  and  attending  on  his  ministrations  ? 

Sixty-sixth  Interrogatory — What  is  the  censure  due  to  those  who  continue 
insubordinate  by  adhering  to  a  deposed  minister,  and  employing  him  as  their 
minister,  according  to  the  principles  and  discipline  of  the  Associate  Church? 

Sixty-seventh  Interrogatory — Who  have  a  right,  according  to  the  principles 
of  the  Associate  Church,  to  vote  for  the  election  of  Trustees? 

Sixty-eighth  Interrogatory — In  congregations  in  the  Associate  Church, 
where  Trustees  are  appointed,  do  they  or  do  they  not  act  in  part  or  in  whole 
in  the  room  of  deacons,  and  are  or  are  not  ary  eligible  to  the  office  of  Trus- 
tees, but  members  in  full  communion,  according  to  the  word  of  God  and  the 
principles  and  standards  of  the  Associate  Church,  and  are  or  not  the  laws  of 
the  Associate  Church  the  same  on  these  subjects  in  the  State  of  New  York, 
as  elsewhere  ? 

Sixty-ninth  Interrogatory — Is  or  is  not  the  lesser  office  in  the  Church  inclu- 
ded in  the  greater,  and  have  or  have  not  the  elders  cognizance  and  jurisdic- 
tion over  the  deed  and  acts  of  the  deacons  or  Trustees  as  such,  and  are  or  are 
not  the  Trustees  accountable  to  the  Church  for  their  conduct  as  officers  in- the 
Church,  according  to  her  standards  ? 

Seventieth  Interrogatory — Had  or  had  not  the  Synod  the  right  to  send 
Messrs.  McG  ill  and  McKie  to  preach  in  the  Associate  Church  at  the  time  they 
did,  and  for  the  purposes  they  were  sent,  without  reference  to  the  wishes  of 
a  majority  of  said  congregation  ? 

Seventy-first  Interrogatory — W^ere  or  were  not  the  Elders,  Trustees  and 
Congregation  bound  to  receive  said  Commissioners  ?  according  to  their  vows, 
they  came  under  when  they  joined  the  church,  and  according  to  the  principles 
and  practice,  discipline  and  government  of  the  Associate  Church,  or  had  the 
Trustees  a  right  to  close  the  church  doors  against  them  ? 

Seventy-second  Interrogatory — If  church  courts  are  fallible  and  liable  to  err 
are  or  are  not  they  also  fallible  and  liable  to  err  that  condemn  them  ?  and  who 


259 

are  the  legally  constituted  judges  to  decide  wliieli  are  right  according  to  the 
word  of  God  and  the  standards  of  the  Associate  Church? 

Seventy-third  Interrogatory — Is  it  or  is  it  not  a  departure  from  the  princi- 
ples of  the  Associate  Church  for  any  one  helonging  thereto  to  declare  in  sub- 
stance that  he  never  could  agree  to  testify  against  the  united  Secession  Church 
in  points  wherein  that  church  differs  from  the  Associate  Church  ? 

Seventy-fourth  Interrogatory— It  has  been  stated  by  Andrew  Stark,  a  wit- 
ness in  this  cause,  that  he  knew  the  Associate  Synod  of  North  America  make 
a  decision  one  year  and  reverse  it  the  next,  and  then  reverse  the  latter  decis- 
ion the  succeeding  year.  Is  tliis  true  ?  and  if  so,  in  whose  case  and  under 
what  circumstances  was  it  done  ? 

Seventy-fifth  Interrogatory — It  has  been  stated  by  the  witness,  Andrew  Stark 
that  Messrs.  Anderson,  Gordon,  Miller  and  others  on  page  33  of  the  minutes  of 
Synod  of  June,  1838,  accused  the  Synod  of  asserting  an  untruth  Qr  misrepre- 
sentation and  many  other  things  as  bad.  Is  this  true  ?  and  if  so  under  what 
circumstances  was  it  done? 

Seventy-sixth  Interrogatory — Is  it  or  is  it  not  true  as  represented  by  Andrew 
Stark  that  the  original  seceders  would  have  held  their  churches  if  they  had 
not  voluntarily  given  them  up  ? 

Seventy-seventh  Interrogatory — Is  it  or  is  it  not  true  as  represented  by  An- 
drew Stark,  that  after  Messrs.  Marshal  and  Clarkson,  were  deposed  the  one 
was  excluded  from  his  Church,  because  a  majority  of  his  Congregation  was 
against  him,  and  the  other  retained  his  because  a  majority  of  his  Congrega- 
tion was  with  him.  State  what  you  know  on  this  subject,  or  quote  authori- 
ties? 

Seventy-eighth  Interrogatory — Have  or  have  not  Dr.  Bullions  and  those  oth- 
er deposed  ministers  who  join  with  him  in  Church  fellowship,  departed  from 
the  principles,  discipline  or  government  of  the  Associate  Church?  Give  their 
names. 

Seventy-ninth  Interrogatory — Are  you  acquainted  with  the  work  called  the 
Associate  Presbyterian  Magazine,  edited  by  Rev.  P.  Bullions,  D.  D,,  and  if  so 
is  or  is  not  the  doctrine,  faith  and  practice,  maintained  therein,  a  departure 
from  the  doctrine,  faith  and  practice  of  the  Associate  Church  in  any,  and  in 
what  respects  ? 

Eightieth  Interrogatory — Is  or  is  not  this  said  Magazine,  the  organ  of  the 
new  Synod,  formed  by  deposed  ministers,  from  the  Associate  Church? 

Eighty-first  Interrogatory — Have  you  read  the  answers  of  Dr.  Bullions  and 
the  Trustees  of  the  Associate  Congregation  of  Cambridge,  to  the  bill  of  com- 
plaint in  this  cause,  and  if  so  have  you  deliberately  considered  their  contents? 

Eighty-second  Interrogatory — Are  said  answers  true  or  false  as  far  as  relates 
to  the  doctrines,  government,  discipline,  faith  and  practice  of  the  Associate 
Church,  and  in  the  things  wherein  they  contradict  what  is  stated  in  the  Plfl!s' 
bill  filed  in  this  suit? 

Eighty-third  Interrogatory — Has  or  has  not  as  represented  by  Andrew  Stark, 
the  Associate  Synod  of  North  America,  altered  any  in  their  doctrines,  govern- 
ment, discipline,  faith  or  practice  since  you  became  a  member  of  that  body,  or 
have  they  now  a  different  way  of  proceeding  against  persons  accused,  from 
what  they  formerly  had? 

Eighty-fourth  Interrogatory — Have  the  Associate  Synod  any  power  to  de- 
clare authoritatively  the  doctrine,  law,  government,  discipline  and  faith  of  the 
Associate  Church? 

Eighty-fifth  Interrogatory — Have  or  have  you  not  as  represented  by  Andrew 
Stark,  ever  known  the  Associate   Synod  to  find  an  individual  guilty,  and  in- 


254 

flict  censure  without  proof  or  evidence  ofjiis  crnilt?  have  you  been  in  the 
habit  of  alleiuling  the  annual  ineetino-s  of  the  Associate  K5yn(xl,  and  if  so  how 
often  and  for  how  long  time?  and  could  or  could  not  such  a  thing  have  taken 
place  without  your  knowledge  since  you  became  a  member  of  said  court? 

Eight3'-sixth  Interrogatory — lu  what  way  did  the  case  of  the  Presbytery  of 
Vermont  come  before  the  Synod,  and  was  it  not  regularly  brought  before  that 
court,  and  had  they  jurisdiction  in  the  case,  and  were  or  were  not  the  proceed- 
ings of  Synod  legal  and  regular  according  to  the  rules  and  discipline  of  the 
Associate  Church? 

Eighty-seventh  Interrogatory — Was  or  v/as  not  the  Presbytery  of  Vermont 
regularly  suspended  for  trial,  by  the  Associate  Synod  in  May,  1839,  and  did 
or  did  not  their  own  report  made  to  Synod,  furnish  sufficient  proof? 

Eighty-eighth  Interrogatory — Was  it  or  not  right  for  the  members  of  the 
Presbytery  of  Cambridge  to  vote  in  Synod,  in  the  case  of  the  Presbytery  of 
Vermont  ? 

Eiirhty-ninth  Interrogatory — On  trial  of  the  Presbytery  of  Vermont,  the  next 
year  after  their  suspension,  did  or  did  not  the  Synod  adjudge  that  said  Presby- 
tery did  not  deserve  suspension  at  that  time  ? 

Nintieth  Interrogatory — Were  or  were  not  the  Presbytery  of  Vermont  Jus- 
tifiable in  attempting  to  restore  Dr.  Bullions,  as  they  did  according  to  the  mor- 
al law,  and  the  standards  of  the  Associate  Church,  or  the  powers  vested  in 
Presbyteries  according  to  the  fundamental  principles  of  Presbyterian  Church 
government  ? 

Ninety-first  Interrogatoiy — If  a  minister  is  suspended  from  the  exercises  of 
his  office  and  the  communion  of  the  Church,  by  his  Presbytery,  and  from  his 
continual  obstinacy  and  insubordination  it  afterwards  becomes  necessary  for 
said  Presbytery  to  depose  him,  is  or  not  it  customary  and  proper  to  connect  the 
lesser  sentence  of  excommunication,  with  the  sentence  of  deposition? 

Ninety-second  Interrogatory — If  Dr.  Bullions  had  been  considered  by  Synod 
as  under  the  greater  sentence  of  excommunication,  as  represented  by  Andrew 
Stark,  would,  or  it  have  been  right  and  proper  for  said  Synod  to  have  referred 
him  back  to  the  Presbytery  of  Cambridge  for  further  dealing  ?  and  did  or  not 
they  refer  him  back  to  said  Presbytery  for  further  dealing? 

Ninety-third  .Interrogatory — If  Dr.  Bullions  had  been  under  the  greater 
sentence  of  excommunication,  and  were  it  proper  under  such  circumstances  to 
refer  the  deposed  back  to  Presbytery,  had  or  not  the  Presbytery  of  Vermont  a 
right  to  restore  him,  he  being  deposed  by  a  co-ordinate  Presbytery  and  refer- 
red back  to  said  Presbytery  by  Synod  ? 

Ninety-fourth  Interrogatory — Have  or  have  not  the  Associate  Synod  of  N. 
America  been  in  the  habit  of  inflicting  censures,  disproportioned  to  the  of- 
fence charged,  as  represented  by  Andrew  Stark? 

Ninety-fifth  Interrogatory — Was  or  not  David  Bullions  a  licentiate  in  the 
Associate  Church,  and  at  what  time  did  he  receive  his  licence,  and  how  did 
his  appointment  run  for  the  first  year  or  till  the  next  meeting  of  Synod  ? 

Ninety-sixth  interrogatory — Did  or  did  not  the  said  Associate  Synod  give 
the  said"^David  Bullion^s  appointments  again  at  their  next  in  May  1842? 

Ninety-seventh  Interrogatory — Have  you  seen  or  read  the  proceedings  of 
the  Presbytery  of  Cambridge,  in  relation  to  the  conduct  of  Mr.  David  Bullions 
and  the  censure  inflicted  on  him  by  that  Presbytery  for  accepting  a  call  in  his 
father's  congregation,  and  for  joining  in  a  body  with  his  father  and  other  de- 
posed ministers  and  leaving  the  principles  and  fellowship  of  the  Associate 
Church? 

Ninety-eighth  Interrogatory— Had  or  not  the  Presbytery  of  Cambridge  ju- 


255 

risdiction  in  his  case  ?  and  had  they  not  a  legal  right  to  try  and  censure  him  for 
such  conduct,  according  to  the  discipline  and  governmeut  of  the  Associate 
Church  ? 

Ninety-ninth  Interrogatory — Is  or  not  Mr.  David  Bullions  any  longer  a  min- 
ister or  member  of  the  Associate  Church  in  good  standing  ?  or  has  he  or  not 
a  right  to  officiate  as  a  minister  in  said  church  ? 

One  hundredth  Interrogatory — In  how  far  may  the  book  of  discipline  of  the 
General  Assembly  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  be  received  as  authority  in  the 
Associate  Church  ? 

One  hundred  and  fii'st  Interrogatory — How  are  these  words  in  one  of  the 
ordination  vows  to  be  understood,  viz :  "  Remembering  that,  while  they 
act  uprightly  they  judge  not  for  men  but  for  the  Lord  who  is  also  with  them 
in  the  judgment,"  does  this  clause  limit  the  submission  or  enforce  it? 

One  hundred  and  second  Interrogatory — Where  did  the  Associate  Synod  of 
N.  America  meet  in  1841  and  1842,  and  at  what  time  of  each  of  these  years 
did  it  meet  ? 

One  hundred  and  third  Interrogatory — Did  or  did  not  said  Synod  meet  at 
any  other  time  or  place  in  either  of  those  years,  viz:   1841  and  1842  ? 

One  hundred  and  fourth  Interrogatory — Did  or  not  the  Associate  Synod  of  N^ 
America  ever  meet  in  Cambridge,  Washington  County,  New-York  ? 

One  hundred  and  fifth  Interrogatory — Is  or  not  there  any  other  body  claim- 
ing to  be  the  Associate  Synod  of  N.  America,  and  if  soj  who  are  the  minis- 
terial members  of  that  body  ? 

One  humlred  and  sixth  Interrogatory — Were  any  or  all  of  these  ever  mem- 
bers of  the  Associate  Church,  or  are  they  now  or  in  what  relation  to  the  As- 
sociate Church  do  they  now  stand?  state  fully  their  standing  and  declare  the 
truth  fully. 

One  hundred  and  seventh  Interrogatory — Does  or  not  the  conscientious  be- 
lief of  suspended  or  deposed  ministers  in  the  Associate  Church,  in  any  re- 
spect, affect  their  standing  in  said  church  ?  or  does  or  does  not  their  belief  at 
all  affect  the  justice  or  binding  nature  of  the  sentence  ?  declare  the  whole  truth 
fully. 

One  hundred  and  eighth  Interrogatory — Have  or  have  not  the  Associate 
Synod,  of  which  you  are  a  member,  in  any  respect  departed  from  their  former 
principles  ? 

One  hundred  and  ninth  Interrogatory — Have  or  have  not  those  suspended' 
and  deposed  ministers  which  you  have  named,  and  which  have  formed  a  sep- 
arate body  departed  from  the  fellowship,  principles,  discipline  and  governmenC- 
of  the  Associate  Church? 

One  hundred  and  tenth  Interrogatory — It  has  been  stated  by  Andrew  Stark^. 
as  a  witness  in  this  cause  in  substance  that  the  part  of  the  Presbytery  of  Al- 
bany, to  which  Mr.  Stark  belonged,  Avas  suspended  by  the  Associate  Synod  for 
maintaining  that  six  was  a  greater  number  than  three  or  other  words  that  the* 
Synod  decided  that  the  three  members  that  retired  were  the  Presbytery,  and? 
that  the  six  members  who  remained  in  session  were  not  the  Presbytery.  la- 
this true  or  not  ?  if  not,  how  is  it  ?  declare  the  the  truth  fully. 

Lastly — Do  you  know  of  any  matter  or  thing  or  have  you  heard  or  can  yom 
say  any  thing  touching  the  matters  in  question  in  this  cause  that  may  tend  to> 
the  benefit  and  advantage  of  the  said  Complainants  in  this  cause,  besides  what 
you  have  been  interrogated  unto  ?  Declare  the  same  as  fully  and  at  larga' 
as  if  you  had  been  particularly  interrogated  thereto. 

J.  CEARY,  Solicitor,  and  of  Counsel  for  CampUis, 


2/>G 

The  following  arc  the  only  iiitcrrog-atorics  to  bo  put  to  the  witness,  Alexan* 
der  T.  McGill,  and  are  not  to  be  put  to  any  other  witness. 

First  Interrogatory — Wliatis  ^'our  name,  occupation  and  place  of  residence? 
Second  Interrogatory — Do  you  know   the    parties,    (.  omplainants  and  De- 
fendants, in  the  title  of  these  interrogatories  named,  and  any  or  either  of  them^ 
and  for  how  long  have  you  known  them  ?     Declare  the  truth  fully. 

Fiftieth  Interrogatory — AVere  you  a  ministerial  member  of  and  present  in 
the  Associate  Svnod  on  or  about  the  first  June,  1838,  and  were  you  and  Jo- 
seph McKie  the  persons  appointed  by  Synod,  under  the  resolutions  passed  on 
that  day  to  the  following  effect?  Resolved,  That  two  ministers  be  sent  forth- 
with by  this  Synod  to  the  congregations  of  the  deposed  and  suspended  minis- 
ters, to  labor  among  them,  and  as  far  as  possible  heal  their  divisions,  to  re- 
main three  or  four  weeks,  and  their  expenses  be  defrayed  from  the  Synod's 
fund."     Messrs.  A.  T.  McGill  and  McKie  were  appointed  accordingly. 

Fifty-first  Interrogatory — Was  or  not  the  Associate  Congregation  of  Cam- 
bridge one  of  the  Congregations  intended  and  referred  to  in  the  said  rcsolu- 
lution  ? 

Fifity-second  Interrogatory — Had  or  had  not  the  said  Synod,  on  the  same 
first  day  of  June,  and  before  passing  the  said  resolution  appointing  the  said 
commissioners,  affirmed  the  decision  of  the  Presbytery  of  Cambridge,  by 
which  the  Rev.  Alexander  Bullions,  D.  D.,  was  deposed,  and  the  pastoral  con- 
nection between  him  and  the  Congregation  of  Cambridge  dissolved  ?  De- 
clare the  truth  fully. 

Fifty-fifth  Interrogatory — Did  you  as  such  commissioners,  visit  the  Associ- 
ate Congregation  of  Cambridge,  and  make  known  to  Dr.  Bullions,  his  elders, 
deacons  and  trustees  the  object  of  your  visit,  and  .if  so  Avhat  was  the  reception 
you  received  from  them  respectively  ?  Relate  the  whole  truth  with  the  length 
of  time  such  visit  continued,  and  whether  you  were  prevented  from  preach- 
ing in  the  Associate  Church  of  said  Congregation,  and  if  so,  how  and  by 
whom  ?  What  was  the  spirit  in  which  your  visitations  were  conducted  with 
Dr.  Bullions,  also  with  the  Trustees,  and  all  others  of  the  said  Associate  Church,, 
with  whom  you  had  intercourse,  friendly,  and  with  a  view  to  reconciliation  or 
otherwise  ?  relate  the  whole  truth  and  your  knowledge  therein. 

Lastly — Do  you  know  of  any  matter  or  thing,  or  have  you  heard,  or  can' 
you  say  any  thing  touching  the  matters  in  question  in  this  cause  that  may  tend 
to  the  benefit  and  advantage  of  the  said  Complainants  in  this  cause,  besides 
what  you  have  been  interrogated  unto?  Declare  the  same  as  fully  and  at 
large  as  if  you  had  been  particularly  interrogated  thereto. 

J.   CRARY,  SoVr,  and  of  Counsel  for  Complainants. 

The  foregoing  Interrogatories  are  allowed  and  the  objections  thereto  over- 
ruled.—Dated,  March  24th,  1843. 

J.  W.  PROUDFIT,  Master  in  Chancery, 


CROSS  INTERROGATORIES  BY  DEFENDANTS. 


Interrogatories  to  be  administered  by  way  of  cross  examination  to  witness- 
es to  be  produced  and  sworn  and  examined  on  the  part  of  the  Complainants 
in  a  certain  cause  now  pending  in  the  court  of  Chancery,  for  the  State  of 
NewYork,  wherein  William  Stevenson,  William  Robertson,  William  Mc- 
Geoch,  Edward  Small,  James  McArthur,  John  McArthur,  Robert  McArthur, 
Peter  McArthur,  George  Small,  James  Arnot,  John  Arnot,  Edward  Cook,.  John 


257 

Bobertson,  Thomas  McMorris,  James  Hoy,  John  McDoul,  Isaac  Ashton,  John 
poster  and  William  Livingston,  are  complainants ;  and  Alexander  Bullions, 
James  Coulter,  James  Shiland,  Robert  McClellan  and  Peter  Hill  together  with 
the  Associate  Congregation  of  Cambridge  of  the  County  of  Washington  and 
.State  of  jNTew-York  adhering  to  the  principles  of  the  Associate  Presbytery  of 
Pennsylvania  formerly,  now  the  Associate  Synod  of  North  America  are  defend- 
ants under  a  commission  issued  out  of  said  court  directed  to  John  L.  Gow, 
.James  Watson  and  John  H.'  Ewing,  Esqrs.  of  Washington,  Washington  Coun- 
ty Pennsylvania,  commissioners  on  the  part  of  the  Defendants.  The  eigh- 
teenth and  last  cross-Interrogatories,  only  to  be  put  to  the  Rev.  Alex.  T.  Mc- 
.Gill,  and  the  eighteenth  to  be  omitted  to  the  rest  of  the  witnesses. 

First  cross-Interrogatory — How  do  you  know  whether  the  history  of  the  As- 
sociate Church,  as  stated  in  the  said  bill  of  complaint,  referred  to  in  the  fifth 
direct  Interrogatory  is  correct  or  not?  Whence  is  your  knowledge  derived,  and 
what  published  books  or  standard  in  the  Chm'ch  do  you  refer  to,  to  support  your 
answer  ?  Name  them  particularly  by  their  title  or  other  description,  with  the 
page,  chapter  or  section,  ox  other  reference.  Is  it  not  a  matter  of  opinion 
merely  based  on  the  authorities  to  which  you  refer,  whether  said  history  is  cor- 
rect or  not,  or  how  or  why  is  it  not,  and  do  not  members  or  those  claiming  to 
be  members  of  the  Associate  Church,  differ  in  opinion  with  you  on  that  sub- 
ject?    Are  there  not  various  opinions  in  the  church  respecting  it? 

Second  cross-Interrogatory— What  authorities  or  standard  or  works  in  the 
Associate  Church,  do  you  refer  to  in  support  of  your  answer  to  the  eighth  di- 
ject  Interrogatory  ?  Name  them  and  each  of  them,  and  state  the  page,  chap- 
,ter  and  section,  or  other  reference  in  each  particular  work  ?  Is  your  answer 
merely  matter  of  opinion  based  on  the  authorities  to  wliich  you  refer,  and  do 
not  some  members  of  the  Associate  Church  or  those  claiming  to  be  members 
.or  some  of  them  differ  with  you  in  that  opinion? 

Third  cross-Interrogatory — Did  you  ever  see  the  original  minutes  of  the 
Presbytery  of  Cambridge,  referred  to  in  the  tenth  direct  interrogatory?  did 
you  ever  read  them  or  any  part  of  them?  If  yea,  when  and  where?  do  you 
know  anything  respecting  said  minutes  except  what  you  heard  read,  or  stated  at 
the  meeting  of  Synod,  referred  to  in  said  tenth  direct  interrogatory,  and  can 
you  state  now  from  recollection  whether  you  are  acquainted  with  the  minutes 
of  said  Presbytery  or  not  ?  Can  you  swear  and  do  you  swear  that  you  are 
acquainted  with  all  the  minutes  of  said  Presbytery,  touching  or  appertaining 
to  the  case  of  Dr.  Bullions?  If  yea,  state  at  what  time  said  minutes  commence, 
and  what  is  first  stated  on  said  minutes  throughout  from  meeting  to  meeting, 
.on  the  subject  of  his  trial,  through  its  different  stages,  from  the  commence- 
ment to  the  end,  without  reference  to  said  minutes.  Have  said  minutes  or 
any  portion  or  part  of  them,  or  any  copy  or  copies  thereof  or  papers  purport- 
ing to  be  copies  thereof  been  exhibited  to  you  on  this  examination,  or  a  short 
or  any  time  previous  thereto  ?  If  yea,  who  exhibited  them  to  you,  and  when 
,and  where  were  they  exhibited.     State  the  same  fully  and  particularly. 

Fourth  cross-Interrogatory— To  what  books  or  standard  in  the  Associate 
Church  do  you  refer  in  support  of  your  answer  to  the  eleventh  direct  interro- 
gatory ?  name  the  same  and  the  page,  chapter  or  section,  as  before  required  ? 

Fifth  cross-Interrogatory — To  what  books  or  standard  do  you  refer,  in  sup- 
port of  your  answer  to  the  thirteenth  direct  interrogatory,  if  the  books  of 
discipline  of  the  Associate  Church,  narrative  or  other  standard  name  and  cite 
•the  page,  chapter  and  section,  as  before  required.  Is  your  answer  mere  mat- 
ter of  opinion  based  on  the  authorities  to  which  yourefer,  and  don't  some  mem- 
bers of  the  Associate  Church  or  those  claiming  to  be  members,  or  some  of 
them  differ  in  opinion  on  this  subject  ? 
33 


253 

Sixth  cioss-Interrogatory — In  like  manner  as  before,  name  and  cite  tlie  au- 
thorities to  which  you  refer  in  support  of  your  answer  to  the  fourteenth  direct 
interrogatory.  Is  your  answer  to  that  interrogatory  matter  of  opinion  based  on 
such  authorities,  or  how  else  is,  or  can  be  your  answer  supported  ?  state  par- 
ticularly how  you  know  tlic  matter  to  be  as  stated  by  you  in  answer  to  said  in- 
terrogatory. 

Seventh  cross-Interrogatory — You  arc  inquired  of  in  the  fifteenth  direct  in- 
terrogatory as  to  admissions  made  by  Dr.  Bullions  at  the  meeting  of  Synod 
relative  to  his  protests  and  appeals.  Did  not  Dr.  Bullions  say  at  the  time  to 
which  you  are  referred  in  that  interrogatory  that  he  had  duly  protested  and 
appealed  from  the  decision  of  Presbytery,  but  that  he  had  been  induced  to 
delay  prosecuting  his  appeals  in  consequence  of  the  hope  and  assurance  which 
had  been  held  out  that  ail  difficulties  would  be  settled  at  the  pro  re  nnta  meet- 
ing of  Presbytery,  and  that  he  had  been  induced  after  the  pro  re  nnta  meet- 
ing to  delay  from  time  to  time,  still  with  the  hope  that  said  difficulties  would 
be  adjusted,  but  that  he  had  always  at  each  meeting  insisted  upon  his  right 
of  protest  and  appeal  to  Synod  in  case  said  difficulties  were  not  settled  or  ad- 
justed, or  to  the  like  purport  or  effect  or  in  substance?  State  particularly  all 
he  said  at  the  time. 

Eighth  cross-Interrogatory — How  can  you  know  or  determine  whether  the 
Presbytery  of  Cambridge  acted  legally  and  in  accordance  with  the  discipline 
of  the  Associate  Church  in  Dr.  Bullions'  case,  in  respect  to  the  matters  inquir- 
ed of  in  the  seventeenth  direct  interrogatory,  not  having  the  minutes  nor 
proceedings  of  Presbytery  before  you  ?  Is  your  answer  matter  of  opinion,  and 
on  what  is  it  based  ?  Do  members  of  the  Associate  Church  or  those  claiming 
to  be  such  differ  in  opinion  on  this  subject  ?  Are  there  not  members  of  that 
church  or  those  claiming  to  be  such  who  differ  with  you  on  these  subjects  ? 

Ninth  cross-Interrogatory — State  the  authorities  or  books  to  which  you  refer 
in  support  of  your  answer  to  the  18th  direct  interrogatory,  particularly  as  be- 
fore required.  Is  it  in  accordance  with  the  discipline  and  government  of  the 
Associate  Church,  to  exclude  a  member  of  a  church  court  on  mere  motion  or 
resolution  without  evidence  or  any  opportunity  given  to  the  excluded  member 
of  being  heard  or  explaining  the  charges  made  against  him,  or  calling  upon 
him  to  answer  or  explain  such  charge  ?  Whose  right  is  it  to  object  to  a  mem- 
ber of  a  church  court  sitting  in  a  particular  case  ?  State  the  authority  to  which 
you  refer  in  support  of  this  answer  as  before. 

Tenth  crc:;s-Interrogatory — How  do  you  know  that  Messrs.  Goodwillie  and 
Pringle  were  neither  of  them  competent  judges?  Were  their  cases  alike  ? 
Were  they  placed  precisely  under  the  same  circumstances  ?  Name  the  au- 
thorities to  which  you  refer  in  support  of  your  answer  to  the  19th  direct  inter- 
rogatory. 

Eleventh  cross-Interrogatory — State  and  cite  the  authorities  in  support  of 
your  answers  to  the  21st,  22d,  23d,  24th,  25th  and  26th  direct  Interrogatories, 
particularly  as  before  required.  Are  your  answers  to  these  several  interroga- 
tories matters  of  opinion,  and  do  you  differ  from  others  of  the  church  on  those 
subjects? 

Twelfth  cross-Interrogatory — Is  a  member  or  minister  or  congregation  bound 
to  submit  to  the  decisions  of  a  church  court  right  or  wrong  ?  If  yea,  cite  and 
state  your  authorities  as  before  required. 

Thirteenth  cross-Interrogatory —Is  the  decision  of  a  Synod  or  church  court 
binding  when  not  made  in  accordance  with  the  word  of  God,  and  the  standard 
of  the  church,  and  are  members  bound  to  submit  to  such  decision  ?  If  yea, 
state  your  authorities  particularly  as  before.     State  your  authorities  and  ref- 


259 

erences  in  particular  in  support  of  your  answers  to  27th,  28th,  29th,  30th  and 
3lst  direct  interrogatories  particularly  as  before  required. 

Fourteenth  cross-Interrogatory — What  was  the  evidence  against  Dr.  Bullions 
referred  to  by  you  in  your  answer  to  the  32d  direct  interrogatory  ?  To  what 
authority  or  books  or  standard  do  you  refer  in  your  answer  to  the  33d  direct 
interrogatory  ?  Is  your  answer  mere  matter  of  opinion  based  on  those  author- 
ities ?  And  is  it  your  opinion  that  Dr.  Bullions  and  his  congregation  were 
bound  by  the  decision  of  Synod  in  his  case?  And  do  not  others  in  the  church 
or  those  claiming  to  be  members  of  the  church'  differ  with  you  in  opinion? 
Does  Mr.  Stark  differ  in  opinion  with  you  on  the  subject,  and  may  you  not  be 
mistaken  as  well  as  he  ? 

Fifteenth  cross-Interrogatory — State  your  authorities  or  give  your  references 
particularly  as  required  before  in  support  of  your  answers  to  "the  35th,  36th, 
37th,  38th,  39th,  40th,  41st,  42(1,  43d,  44th,  45th  and  46th  direct  interrogato- 
ries. Are  your  answers  to  these  several  interrogatories  matters  of  opinion, 
or  why  and  how  are  they  not  mere  opinions,  and  do  not  others  in  the  church  dif- 
fer with  you  in  opinion  ? 

Sixteenth  cross-Interrogatory — How  do  you  know  whether  Mr.  Erskine  and 
others  still  continued  in  good  standing  or  not  afterthey  were  deposed?  Have 
you  any  other  knowledge  than  that  which  you  derive  from  the  history  of  the 
church  at  that  day  ?  And  is  your  answer  matter  of  opinion  formed  from  rea- 
ding that  history  or  how  otherwise  ? 

Seventeenth  cross-Interrogatory — State  your  authorities  or  give  your  refer- 
ences particularly  as  before  required  in  support  of  your  answers  to  the  53d 
and  54th  direct  interrogatories. 

Eighteenth  cross-Interrogatory— (To  the  Eev.  Alexander  T.  McGill.)  Did 
you  attend  the  meeting  of  the  Presbytery  of  Cambridge  referred  to  in  your 
answer  to  the  55th  and  other  direct  interrogatories  ?  If  nay,  how  do  you  know 
what  took  place  at  that  meeting  of  Presbytery  ?  Do  you  derive  all  your  knowl- 
edge from  others  ?  and  if  so,  from  whom  ? 

Nineteenth  cross-Interrogatory — State  your  authorities,  or  give  your  refer- 
ences particularly  as  before  required  in  support  of  your  answers  to  the  63d,  64th, 
65th,  66th,  67th,  70th,  and  71st  direct  interrogatories.  Are  your  answers  to 
said  several  interrogatories,  matters  of  opinion  based  on  those  authorities  or 
references?  If  nay,  why  or  how  are  they  not?  Do  not  others  differ  with  you, 
on  the  subject  who  are  Church  members,  or  who  claim  to  be  members  of  the 
Church?  and  may  you  not  be  mistaken  in  opinion,  as  well  as  they? 

Twentieth  cross-Interrogatory — What  is  the  particular  office  of  a  deacon  in 
the  Associate  Church?  Is  his  office  of  a  spiritual  nature?  What  are  his  par- 
ticular duties  ?  State  your  authority  or  reference  in  support  of  your  answer  to 
this  cross-interrogatory,  from  the  standards  of  the  Church  fully  and  particular- 
ly as  before  required. 

Twenty-first  cross-Interrogatory — According  to  the  principle  and  discipline 
of  the  Associate  Church,  can  a  minister  be  imposed  on  a  Congregation  with- 
out and  against  their  consent?  Can  a  Presbytery  or  Synod  interfere  in  the 
erection  of  a  Church  edifice  or  building,  and  direct  as  to  the  manner  and  fash- 
ion and  cost  of  its  erection?  At  whose  expense  is  a  Church  edifice,  or  buil- 
ding or  buildings  and  improvements  erected  and  made,  and  whose  right  is  it 
to  build  and  direct  in  building  and  who  has  the  control  of  such  buildings  after 
they  are  erected?  the  Congregation  or  the  Synod  or  Presbytery?  Have  Pres- 
byteries or  Synods  any  care  over  the  temporalities  of  the  Church?  Is  it  in 
accordance  with  the  principles  of  the  Associate  Church,  that  the  civil  laws,  or 
laws  of    the  land,    shall  yield   to  the  decisions   of  the  ecclesiastical  tribunals 


260 

when  pronounced  hy  such  tribunals  in  the  Associate  Church?  State  particu-' 
larly  your  authorities  and  references,  from  the  standards  of  the  Clnnxli  as  be- 
fore required,  in  support  of  your  answer  to  this  cross-interropatory. 

Twenty-second  cross-Interrogfatory — If  Church  courts  arc  fallible  and  liable 
to  err,  are  not  they  also  fallible  and  liable  to  err  that  support  or  approve  of 
their  decision?  and  may  you  not  err  in  opinion,  in  supporting  such  decisions, 
as  well  as  those  who  condemn  them? 

Twenty-third  cross-Interrogatory — ^Are  your  answers  to  the  76th,  and  77th 
direct  intenogatories  matters  of  opinion,  formed  fionr  readingthe  history  of  the 
original  seceders,  or  how  otherwise  are  you  enabled  to  answer  those  interrog- 
atories? State  your  references  for  such  answers  particularly  as  before  recjui- 
red. 

Twentj'-fourth  cross-Intenogatory — How  do  you  know  the  wo^k  shown  to 
you  as  the  Associate  Presbyterian  Magazine,  and  to  which  you  are  teferred  in 
the  79lh  direct  interrogatory  as  having  seen,  or  being  acquainted  with,  is  cor- 
rect or  a  true  copy  of  that  work  ?  Where  have  you  seen  said  work?  Who  ex- 
hibited it  to  you?  Produce  the  copy  or  a  copy  of  said  w^brk,  and  [have  it  mar- 
ked as  an  exhibit,  that  it  can  be  returned  by  the  commissioners  with  this  com- 
mission. Is  your  answer  matter  of  opinion,  and  may  you  not  be  mistaken  in 
opinion  as  well  as  the  authors  of  that  work  ?  And  are  not  many  of  the  arti- 
cles argumentative  answers  to  articles  on  the  same  subjects,  which  have  been 
published  and  exist  in  a  work  entitled  the  Religious  Monitor?  Was  Chancey 
Webster  the  author  of  many  or  some  of  the  said  articles  referred  to  in  the 
Religious  Monitor?  Was  he  the  editor  of  the  said  Religious  Monitor  at  the 
time  said  articles  were  published  ?  Is  he  the  said  Chancey  Webster,  now  a 
member  of  the  Associate  Cliurch  in  good  standing?  And  if  not,  why  is  he 
not?  and  for  what  cause  is  he  not?  Detail  the  cause  and  the  reasons  particu- 
larly. If  he  has  been  deposed  or  suspended,  or  is  not  now  in  good  standing 
in  the  Church  for  maintaining  erroneous  doctrines  in  the  Church.  May  he 
not  also  have  erred  in  opinion  when  he  was  editor  of  the  Religious  Monitor? 
Does  the  said  Chancey  Webster  now  differ  with  you  in  opinion  as  to  how  far 
it  is  right  and  proper  to  submit  to  the  decisions  of  Church  Judicatories?  Do 
you  believe  that  a  member  is  bound  to  submit  to  the  decisions  of  a  Church 
judicatory  right  or  wrong?  And  dose  Mr.  Webster  differ  with  you  in  opinion 
and  do  many  other  members  of  the  Associate  Church,  or  claiming  to  be  mem- 
bers differ  Avith  you  in  opinion  on  that  subject?  State  your  authorities  in  sup- 
port of  your  answers  to  the  84th,  85th,  86th,  S7th,  SSth,  90th,  and  9lst  direct 
interrogatories. 

Twenty-fifth  cross-Interrogatory — How  do  you  know  whether  the  answers 
of  the  Defendants  in  this  case  referred  to  in  the  eighty-second  direct  interrog- 
atory are  true  or  false  ?  Is  it  mere  matter  of  opinion  and  what  authorities  and 
references  do  you  quote  in  support  of  your  answer  to  that  interrogatory  ?  State 
the  same  fully  and  why  if  not  your  answer  is  not  matter  of  opinion.  Do  not 
the  Defendants  differ  or  claim  to  differ  with  you  in  opinion  on  the  subject  of 
said  answer,  and  do  not  others  in  the  church  or  claiming  to  be  members  of  the 
Associate  Church  differ  with  you  in  opinion,  or  claim  to  differ  with  you  in  opin- 
ion on  these  subjects,  and  may  you  not  be  mistaken  in  opinion  asAvell  as  they^ 
and  "  Who  art  thou  that  judgest  another?" 

Twenty-sixth  cross-Interrogatory — Why  are  the  words  quoted  in  the  one 
hundred  and  first  direct  interrogatory  as  part  of  one  of  the  ordination  vows  in- 
serted at  all  in  said  vow,  if  they  neither  limit  or  enforce  the  submission? 
Are  they  merely  words  without  meaning?  If  nay,  state  their  meaning  and 
effect  fully.     Are  they  considered  by  all  members  of  the  Church,^  or  by   all 


261 

claiming  to  be  members  of  the  Associate  Church  as  Immaterial  and  of  no  force 
and  effect  ?  If  nay,  how  are  they  considered  ?  State  your  references  and  au- 
thorities particulrixly  as  before  required. 

Twenty-seventh  cross-Interrogatory— Did  ycu  vote  in  all  cases  with  the  ma- 
jority when  Dr.  Bullions'  case  was  on  trial  or  hearing  before  the  Synod  and  in 
all  cases  and  on  all  questions  relative  to  said  trial  agaiost  Dr.  Bullions,  and  al- 
so did  you  vote  against  the  Presbytery  of  Vermont  on  all  questions  arising  up- 
on their  trial,  and  when  they  were  suspended,  and  is  your  name  recorded  a— 
iHong  the  ayes  and  noes  in  the  minutes  of  Synod  at  these  times  ? 

Twenty-eighth  cross-Interrogatory — (To  the  Rev.  Mr.  Martin.)  Were  you  a 
member  of  the  Presbytery  of  Albany  when  Mr.  Stark  was  such  member  and 
was  you  one  of  the  three  who  seceded  and  went  out  of  that  Presbytery  at  the 
time  spoken  of  by  Mr.  Staik  and  to  which  you  are  referred  in  the  one  hun- 
dred and  tenth  direct  interrogatory  ?  Were  you  formerly  the  editor  or  one  of" 
the  editors  of  the  Religious  Monitor,  and  was  j'ou  the  author  of  all  or  some 
or  any  of  the  articles  published  in  that  work  condemning  or  censuiing  Dr.  Bul- 
lions, Mr.  Stark  and  others  ?  Or  M^hat  articles  on  the  subject  of  Dr.  Bullions',, 
Mr.  Starks',  Mr.  Stalker's  and  Mr.  P.  Bullions' cases  were  you  the  author  of? 
Are  you  on  friendly  terms  withDr.  Bullions  and  Mr.  Stark?  Are  you  the  au- 
thor of  and  have  you  purchased  and  published  a  sermon  or  article  maintaining 
and  supporting  the  doctrine  that  a  member  of  the  Associate  Church  is  bound 
to  submit  to  the  decisions  of  a  church  court  right  or  wrong  ?  or  to  that  import 
or  effect?  Cr  what  is  the  tenor  and  subject  of  said  sermon  or  article?  Do 
you  differ  with  many  members  of  the  Church,  or  many  claiming  to  be  mem- 
bers of  that  Church,  in  opinion  on  the  subject  discussed  in  your  sermon  or 
article  ?  and  may  you  not  be  mistaken  in  opinion  as  well  as  they  ?  When 
did  you  leave  Albany,  and  how  long  before  you  left  it,  did  you  cease  to  have 
any  intercourse  or  friendship  whatever  with  Dr.  Bullions  ? 

Last  cross-Interrogatory — (To /all.)  Do  you  know  of  any  matter  or  thing  or 
have  you  heard  or  can  you  say  any  thing  touching  the  matters  in  question  in 
this  case  that  may  tend  to  the  benefit  and  advantage  of  the  said  Defendants 
besides  what  you  have  been  interrogated  unto  ?  Declare  the  same  as  fully  and 
at  large  as  if  you  had  been  particularly  interrogated  thereto. 

B.  BLAIR,  Solr.for  Defts. 

C.  L.  ALLEN,  of  Counsel. 
The  foregoing  cross-Interrocratories  are   alloAved  and  the  objections  thereto 

over-ruled.  "  J.  W.  PROUDFIT, 

blaster  in  Chancery. 

We  certify  that  on  the  15th  day  of  May,  1843,  at  the  Clerk's  office  in  the' 
Borough  of  Washington,  being  the  day  and  place  appointed  for  executing  the 
Commission  to  us  directed  we  attended  to  execute  the  same,  and  we  further 
certify  that  Jno.  L.  Gow  and  James  Watson  attended  on  that  day  and  all  the 
successive  days  throughout  the  examination,  and  that  John  H  Ewing  Esqr> 
attended  only  on  the  first  day,  being  prevented  by  other  engagements  and  ab- 
sence from  town. 

JNO.  L.  GOW,       ) 
JAS.  WATSON,      )  Commissioners. 
JNO.  H.  EWING,    ) 
Messrs.  Jas.  Watson  and  John  H.  Ewing,  Esqr., — Gentlemen,  youwill please 
take  notice,  that  you  are  named  and  appointed  commissioners  in  a  commission  is- 
sued out  of  Chancery,  in  the  State  of  New- York,  in  the  case  of  William  Steven- 
son^  et  al.  and  Alexander  Bullions,  and  that  the  said  commission  will  be  exe- 


262 

cuted  on  the  15th  day  of  iMay  current  rit   tlie  Clerk's-  ofHoc,  (court  house,)  in 
Washington  at  ten  o'clock  of  ?aid  dav- 
JOHN  L.  GOW, 

One  of  the  Commissioners  named,  6th  May,  1843. 
We  acknowledge  service  of  the  foie?oiug  paper  upon  us  severally  this  6th 
Kay,  1843.  ^  J.  H.  EWING, 

JAS.  WATSON. 


Depositions  of  witnesses  produced,  sworn,  or  affirmed  and  examined  the 
15th  day  of  May,  A.  D.,  1S13,  at  the  Clerk's  office,  in  the  borough  of  Wash- 
ino-ton.  County  of  Washington,  and  State  of  Pennsylvania,  under  and  by  vir- 
tue of  a  commission,  issued  out  of  the  Court  of  Chancery  of  the  State  of  New 
York,  in  a  certain  cause  therein  depending  and  at  issue  between  Wm.  Steven- 
son, AVilliam  Robertson,  William  McGeoch,  Edward  Small,  James  McArthur, 
John  McArthur,  Robert  McArthur,  Peter  McArthur,  George  Small,  James  Ar- 
not,  John  Arnot,  Edward  Cook,  John  Robertson,  Thomas  McMorris,  James 
Hoy,  John  McDoual,  Isaac  Ashton,  John  Foster  and  William  Livingston,  are 
Complainants,  and  Alexander  Bullions,  James  Coulter,  James  Shiland,  Robert 
McClellan  and  Peter  Hill,  together  with  the  Associate  Congi  egation  of  Cam- 
badge,  of  the  County  of  Washington  and  State  of  New-York,  adhcing  to 
the  principles  of  the  "Associate  Pr'esbytery  of  Pennsylvania,  foimerly,  now  the 
Associate  Synod  of  North  America,  are  Defendants, 

Thomas  Bevcridge,  D.  D.,  Professor  of  Ecclesiastical  History  and  Biblical 
Literature  in  the  Theological  Seminary  of  the  Associate  Presbyterian  Church 
at  Cannonsburgh  in  the  County  of  Washington  and  State  of  Pennsylvania, 
awed  forty-six  years,  being  duly  and  publicly  sworn  on  part  of  the  plaintiffs, 
doth  depose  and  say  as  follows,  to  wit : 

1st.  To  the  first  Interrogatory  he  saith — My  name  is  Thomas  Beveridge,  and  I 
am  a  minister  of  the  Gospel  and  Professor  of  Ecclesiastical  History  and  Bibli- 
cal Literature  in  the  Theological  Seminary  of  the  Associate  Presbyterian 
Church,  and  I  reside  at  Cannonsburgh,  in  Washington  County,  State  of  Penn- 
sylvania. 

2d.  To  the  second  Interrogatory  he  saith — I  do  know  all  or  nearly  all  of  the 
persons  named  both  as  Plaintiffs  and  Defendants  in  the  title  of  these  interro- 
gatories named,  and  have  known  most  of  them  from  childhood,  having  been 
born  and  raised  within  the  bounds. of  the  congregation  named. 

3d.  To  the  third  Interrogatory  named  he  saith — I  am  now,  and  have  been 
for  more  than  twenty-two  years  an  ordained  minister  of  the  Associate 
Church, 

4th.  To  the  fourth  Interrogatory  he  saith — I  am  acquainted  with  the  history, 
faith,  practice,  doctrines  and  government  of  the  Associate  Church,  referred  to 
in  the  Complainants'  Bill  of  Complaint,  Said  Church  is  Presbyterian  in  her 
form  of  government,  and  holds  without  essential  difference  the  same  princi- 
ples of  government  and  discipline  with  other  Presbyterian  denominations, 
and  particularly  the  Church  of  Scotland  from  the  corrupt  judicatories  of  which 
fihe  seceded,  but  not  from  her  principles. 

5th.  To  the  fifth  Interrogatory  he  saith — I  believe  the  History  of  the  Asso- 
ciate Church  as  stated  in  the  said  Bill  of  Complaint  is  correct,  according  to 
the  best  of  my  knowledge,  remembrance,  information  and  belief. 

6th.  To  the  sixth  Interrogatory  he  saith — The  Associate  Church  is  Presby- 
terian in  government,  and  her  members,  like  those  of  any  other  well  regulated 
society,  are  bound  to  obedience,  and  in  case  of  obstinate  resistance  must  ne- 
cessarily be  expelled, 


263 

7th.  To  the  seventh  Interrogatory  he  saith — lam  acquainted  with  the  church 
judicatories  stated  in  the  said  bill  of  complaint  and  they  are  correctly  stated  there- 
in. They  consist  of  Sessions,  Presbyteries  and  Synods  ;  and  their  powers  and 
duties  are  also  correctly  stated  in  the  said  bill. 

8th.  To  the  eighth  Interrogatory  he  saith — The  doctrines,  government,  disci- 
pline, faith  and  practice  of  the  Associate  Church  are  correctly  set  forth  in  the 
said  bill  of  complaint. 

9th.  To  the  ninth  Interrogatory  he  saith — I  attended  the  Synod  of  the  year 
1838,  as  a  member,  and  was  present  when  the  case  of  Dr.  Bullions  was  tritd 
before  the  said  Synod. 

10th.  To  the  tenth  Interrogatory  he  saith — I  heard  the  minutes  referred  to  in 
this  interrogatory  read  in  the  Synod  when  the  deposition  of  Dr.  Bullions  was 
confirmed. 

11th.  To  the  eleventh  Interrogatory  he  saith — It  is  not  necessary  that  a  contempt 
of  court  or  an  offence  committed  before  a  court  should  be  proved  by  witnesses. 
The  court  may  proceed  upon  their  own  knowledge.  It  is  not  necessary  in  such 
a  case  that  there  should  bea  libel  citation  ten  days'  notice,  &c.  as  in  other  cases. 

12th.  To  the  twelfth  Interrogatory  he  saith — The  statement  which  Dr.  Bul- 
lions made  respecting  certain  members  of  the  Presbytery  was  a  charge  found- 
ed upon  common  fame,  which  charge  he  also  insinuated  was  in  his  estimation 
true.  This  being  made  in  open  court  in  would  have  been  preposterous  to  seek 
to  prove  it  by  other  testimony  than  their  own  knowledge.  The  decision  to  re- 
buke. Dr.  Bullions  was  according  to  the  best  of  my  recollection  for  contempt 
of  court  in  slanderous  insinuations  and  expressions  openly  made  in  the  pres- 
ence of  the  Presbytery  aforesaid. 

13th.  To  the  thirteenth  Interrogatory  he  saith — A  protest  and  appeal  when 
admitted  by  an  inferior  court  carries  the  case  before  the  superior  court,  and 
stays  all  further  proceedings  in  the  case  appealed  from.  Perdivan  form  of  pro- 
cess, chapter  5,  last  section. 

14th.  To  the  fourteenth  Interrogatory  he  saith — Cases  may  occur  in  which 
it  may  be  warrantable  to  refuse  a  protest  and  appeal ;  as  for  example,  when  its 
language  is  indecent,  its  statements  grossly  false  when  it  relates  to  something 
which  is  essential  to  the  continued  action  of  the  court,  or  to  some  grievous 
scandals  which  could  not  be  tolerated  during  the  pendency  of  an  appeal.  When 
an  appeal  is  not  admitted  the  court  may  proceed  to  try  the  accused,  and  his 
means  of  redress  is  by  appealing  from  the  rejection  of  his  appeal  which  is  al- 
vvrays  to  be  admitted,  and  if  sustained  brings  before  the  superior  court  the 
whole  merits  of  the  case.  Ass.  book  of  discipline,  art.  12,  paragraph  2d  ;  Pres- 
byterian discipline,  chap  7th,  sec.  3d,  item  15.  In  cases  of  contumacy  of  a 
minister,  Presbyteries  may  proceed  to  depose. 

15th.  To  the  fifteenth  interrogatory  he  saith — There  was  no  protest  or  ap- 
peal brought  by  Dr.  Bullions  before  Synod  ;  but  the  case  came  before  the  Sy- 
nod by  memorial  and  complaint  of  Dr.  Bullions.  The  Presbytery  had  a  right 
to  object  to  this,  as  he  had  appealed,  and  agreeably  to  rules  of  discipline 
had  fallen  from  his  appeal,  and  had  given  no  notice  of  his  intention  to  com- 
plain. The  Presbytery  however  did  not  insist  on  their  right,  but  consented 
that  the  memorial  and  complaint  should  be  heard.  So  that  the  case  came  reg- 
ularly before  the  Synod.  As  to  admissions  by  Dr.  Bullions  I  do  not  now  recollect, 

16th.  To  the  sixteenth  Interrogatory  he  saith — The  case  came  before  Syn- 
od in  the  manner  stated  in  my  last  answer.  And  the  manner  is  fully  set  forth, 
in  the  minutes  of  Synod  of  1838.  I  dont  know  of  any  other  way  in  which 
the  case  could  be  legally  taken  up  than  as  stated  in  answer  to  interrogatory 
15,  which  was  by  consent  of  Presbytery,  adjourned  to  meet  at  the  same  place 


264 

•on  the  20th  Juno  next.     All  the  commigsioncrs  present   at  the  first  meeting'* 
iiOlli  June,  IJSJ.3 :   Conunissioners,  Jno.  D.  Gow  and  James  Watson  present 
Exauiination  continued. 

17th.  To  the  seventeenth  Intcrrojalory  he  saith — The  Preshytcry  of  Cam- 
bridofe  acted  legally  and  in  accordance  with  the  discipline  and  practice  of  the 
Associate  Church,  in  proceeding  to  the  higher  censures  of  suspension  and  do- 
position  against  Dr.  Bullions,  notwithstanding  his  protest  and  appeal  against 
:their  decision  to  rebuke  him,  as  the  case  .was  one  requiring  immediate  action^ 
and  as  they  in  consequence  of  this  refused  to  admit  his  protesL 

ISth.  To  the  eighteenth  Interrogatory  he  saith — Each  church  court  in  the 
Associate  Church  must  judge  of  the  campctenc}^  of  their  own  members,  and 
may  from  their  own  knowledge  without  other  testimony,  exclude  from  a  vote 
in  any  particular  cause,  raiy  member  for  relationship  or  partialit}'. 

19th.  To  the  iiineicenth  Interrogatory  he  saith — When  objection  is  made 
against  one  individual,  it  is  not  proper  that  another,  against  whom  the  same 
objection  is  made,  should  vote  in  the  case. 

20th.  To  the  twentieth  Interrogatory  he  saith — They  did  not  protest  and 
appeal,  or  if  they  did,  such  protest  and  appeal  did  not  come  before  Synod. 

21st.  To  the  twenty-first  Interrogatory  he  saith — He  is  not. 

22d.  To  the  twenty-second  Interrogatory  he  saith — It  cannot. 

23d.  To  the  twenty-third  Interrogatory  he  saith — The  conduct  mentioned 
in  the  Interrogatory  was  slanderous  and  contemptuous  to  the  court. 

24lh.  To  the  twenty-fourth  Interrogatory  he  saitlii — Such  charges  did  not 
disqualify  the  members  of  Presbytery  from  sitting  and  acting  in  the  case  of 
Dr.  Bullions,  while  they  were  not  named,  nor  after  they  were  named  unless 
they  were  to  be  put  on  trial  for  the  alleged  slanders. 

25th.  To  the  twenty  fifth  Interrogatory  he  saith — I  do  not  certainly  know 
that  I  have  seen  or  heard  the  declinature  alluded  to,  if  it  be  the  one  presented 
to  Presbytery  at  Hebron  February  7th,  1838.  But  from  the  account  of  its 
-contents  given  by  the  Presbytery  it  would  appear  to  be  a  declining  of  his  own 
Presbytery  as  not  his  lawful  Judges,  and  so  unwarrantable.  Perdivan,  13,  iv, 
title  5,  sec.  9th. 

2Gth.  To  the  twenty-sixth  Interrogatory  he  saith — It  may  ;  see  Perdivan  as 
■above. 

27th.  To  the  twenty-seventh  Interrogatory  ho  saith — Doctor  Bullions  and 
his  Congregation  were  bound  to  submit  to  the  sentence  of  suspension  and  de- 
position by  the  Presbytery  against  him  until  reversed  or  confirmed  by  Synod, 
,and  to  this  submission  he  was  bound  by  his  ordination  vows,  in  the  manner 
.set  forth  in  the  interrogatories. 

28th.  To  the  twenty-eighth  Interrogatory  he  saith — Any  grievance  being 
^submitted  to  the  decision  of  Synod,  the  decision  of  that  body  is  final  and  con- 
delusive  upon  the  parties  and  the  whole  Associate  Church. 

29th.  To  the  twenty-ninth  Interrogatory  he  saith — It  is. 

30th.  To  the  thirtieth  Interrogatory  he  saith— Ordinarily  three  citations 
.should  be  given  but  not  always,  as  when  the  person  peremptorily  refuses  to  at- 
tend.    Ten  days  should  intervene  between  the  first  and  second  citation,  but 
the  same  number  of  days  is  not  necessary  afterwards.     Perdivan. 

3lsf.  To  the  ihiriy-first  Inierrogaiory  he  saiili — They  were  bound  to  submit 
vnoiwiihsianding  their  conscientious  belief  of  the  injusiice  of  them. 

32nd.  To  the  thirty-second  Interrogatory  he  saiih — It  was  not  true  as  the 
whole  Presbytery  were  witnesses  of  what  was  said  in  their  presence  by  Dr- 
.Bullions. 

33d.  To  the  thirty-third  Interrogatory  he  saith— It  is  not  true. 


265 

<34t?i.  To  ihe  thirty-fourth  Literrogatory  he  saitli — Doctor  Bullions  was  not 
obliged  to  preach  under  the  circumstances  stated  in  the  interrogatory. 

35th.  To  the  thirty-fifth  Interrogatory  he  saith — A  protest  against  the  deed 
of  Synod  is  a  solemn  declaration  of  disagreement  with  that  deed,  but  if  the 
person  presenting  it  continue  in  the  followship  of  the  church,  it  does  not  war- 
rant hiin  to  refuse  submission  to  the  said  deed. 

36th.  To  the  thirty-six  Interrogatory  he  saith — The  protest  of  Dr.  Bullions 
referred  to  in  this  interrogatory  was  accompanied  with  a  declinature  of  the 
authority  of  Synod,  and  an  abandonment  of  the  Associate  Church. 

37lh.  To  the  thirty-seventh  Interrogatory  he  saith — The  caseot  Dr.  Bullions 
is  materially  different  from  that  of  the  first  seceders  in  the  eighteeruh  century. 
They  contended  for  the  public  cause  of  religion  against  error  in  doctrine  and 
oppressions  of  the  people.  Dr.  Bullions'  case  is  altogether  personal  affecting^ 
himself  only. 

38th.  To  the  thirty-eighth  Interrogatory  he  saith — They  did  not. 
39th.  To  the  thirty-ninth  Interrogatory  he  saith — I  have    no  recollection  of 
any  such  departure  of  the  Synod  in   the  case  of  Dr.  Bullions   as  would  at  all 
aiTect  the  validity  of  their  decisions, 

40th.  To  the  fortieth  Interrogatory  he  saith— They  did  not. 
41st.  To  the  forty-first  Interrogatory  he  saith — It  was  not. 
42d.  To  the  forty-second  Interrogatory  he  saith — It  was. 
43d.  To  the  forty-third  Interrogatory  he  saith— It  was  insubordination  and 
contempt  of  Presbytery  and  Synod. 

44th.  To  the  forty-fouth  Interrogatory  he  saith — It  was  a  profanation  of  the 
ordinance  of  Christ,  and  an  abiuring  and  repudiating  of  the  form  of  Presby- 
terian Church  government  and  the  authority  of  the  church  courts  for  a  con- 
gregation thus  to  employ  a  deposed  minister,  and  they  thus  make  themselves 
partners  in  his  guilt. 

4f5th.  To  the  forty-fifth  Interrogatory  he  saith — ^^The  act  of  the  congrega- 
gation  was  such  as  is  described  in  the  interrogatory. 

46th.  To  the  forty-sixth  Interrogatory  he  saith — They  are  not  in  good  stand- 
ing in  the  Associate  Church,  and  cannot  be  admitted  to  her  fellowship,  ac- 
cording to  her  principles,  while  they  continue  in  their  present  course. 

47th.  To  the  forty-seventh  Interrogatory  he  saith — The  protest  of  Dr.  Bul- 
lions could  not  give  him  a  right  to  preach  or  enjoy  any  privilege  in  Associate 
Church,  and  its  being  ac-companied  by  a  declinature,  might  justly  be  regarded 
as  an  intimation  on  his  part  that  he  viewed  his  connexion  with  the  Associate 
Church  as  dissolved. 

4Sth.  To  the  forty-eighth  Interrogatory  he  saith — They  did  not  continue 
in  good  standing  in  the  established  church  of  Scotland  after  they  were  de- 
posed, but  exercised  their  ministry  in  a  state  of  secession. 

49th.  To  the  forty-ninth  Interrogatory  he  saith — The  case  of  Dr.  Bullions 
is  altogether  diflerent  from  that  of  Mr.  Erskine.  .Mr.  Erskine  was  tried  for 
his  adherence  to  the  public  cause  of  truth — T)r.  Bullions  for  personal  immoral- 
ities— Mr.  Erskine  submitted  to  be  rebuked  before  the  General  Assembly  of 
the  Church  of  Scotland,  and  only  protested  that  he  should  have  liberty  to  com- 
plain of  those  acts  of  the  church  against  which  he  had  already  testified.  Dr. 
Bullions  refused  to  be  rebuked  and  declined  the  authority  of  his  Presbytery. 
Mr.  Erskine  seceded  before  he  was  deposed,  and  the  main  ground  of  his  depo- 
sition was  his  having  seceded  and  exercised  his  ministry  in  a  state  of  separa* 
tion  from  the  established  church.  Dr.  Bullions  was  deposed  for  immoralities, 
and  since  deposition  claims  to  be  a  minister  of  the  church,  which  has  deposed 
him.     Mr.  Erskine  seceded  that  he  might  maintain  Presbyterian  principles  in 

34 


266 

their  purity.     Dr.  Bullions    that  he  muy  rnaiatiiin    the  principle  of  congrega- 
tional and  individual  independency. 

53d.  To  the  filty-third  Interrogatory  he  sailh — It  is;  the  right  and  duty  of 
Synod  in  such  a  case,  to  appoint  some  one  or  more  to  give  intimation  of  such 
deed,  in  the  manner  set  forth  in  the  interrogation. 

54th.  To  the  fifty-fourth  Interrogatory  he  saith — It  is  the  duty  of  the  con- 
gregation and  Trustees,  to  receive  such  commissioners,  to  open  the  doors  of 
their  Church,  and  afford  them  the  facilities  mentioned  in  the  interrogatory. 

62d.  To  the  sixty-second  Interrogatory  he  saith — It  was  consistent  with 
the  power  of  the  Presbytery  of  Cambridge,  to  pass  the  deed  described  in  Ex- 
hibit K,  attached  to  this  interrogator)'. 

63d.  To  the  sixty-third  Interrogatory  he  saith — It  authorized  the  members 
of  the  session,  who  continued  subordinate  to  act  as  the  session  of  the  Associ- 
ate Congregation  of  Cambridge. 

64lh.  To  the  sixty-fourth  InterrogJitory  he  saith — The  deed  of  the  Presby- 
tery was  sufficient  to  exclude  from  the  session  and  congregation,  such  as  re- 
fused submission  to  the  deed  of  Synod  confirming  the  deposition  of  Dr.  Bul- 
lions. It  however  pertained  to  the  session,  recognized  by  the  Presbytery  to 
determine  and  declare  Avho  were  guilty  of  insubordination  ;  and  they  might 
call  before  them  those  who  were  charged  with  this  offence  and  apply  the  deed 
of  Presbytery  by  formally  excluding  them  from  communion. 

66th.  To  the  sixty-sixth  Interrogatory  he  saith — If  ministers,  they  should  be 
deposed ;  if  other  members,  they  should  be  suspended  or  excommunicated. 
See  Perdivan,  book  iv.  title  4th,  sec.  17th. 

67th.  To  the  sixty-seventh  Interrogatory  he  saith — None  but  members  in 
full  communion. 

6Sth.  To  the  sixty-eighth  Interrogatory  he  saith — Trustees  are  not  recogniz- 
ed as  officers  of  the  church  according  to  the  discipline  of  the  Associate  Synod  ;. 
but  when  they  are  elected  agreeably  to  charter  rules  they  act  in  the  place  of 
deacons  ;  and  none  are  considered  eligible  to  this  office  but  such  as  are  in  full 
communion;  and  the  laws  of  the  Associate  Church  in  the  state  of  New  York 
are  the  same  on  this  subject  as  elswhere. 

69th.  To  the  sixt3-ninth  Interrogatory  he  saith — The  greater  office  in  the 
church  implies  the  lesser  ;  the  elders  have  a  cognizance  and  jurisdiction  over 
the  deacons  or  trustees  as  such,  who  are  bound  to  obey  their  directions,  and 
are  accountable  to  the  session  for  their  oflicial  conduct. 

70th.  To  the  seventieth  Interrogatory  he  saith — They  had. 

71st.  To  the  seventy-first  Interrogatory  he  saith — The  trustees,  elders  and 
congregation  were  bound  to  receive  the  commissioners  ;  and  had  no  right  to 
close  the  doors  against  them. 

72d.  To  the  sevent3--second  Interrogatory  he  saith — Church  courts  arc  falli- 
ble and  liable  to  err,  and  those  also  who  condemn  them  ;  but  it  is  obvious  that 
the  court  is  to  judge  the  accused,  and  not  the  accused  the  court. 

73d.  To  the  seventy-third  Interrogatory  he  saith — It  is. 

74th.  To  the  seventy-fourth  Interrogatory  he  saith — He  does  not  know  of 
the  Associate  Synod's  having  acted  as  alleged  by  Andrew  Stark.  In  the  case 
of  Andrew  Stark  to  which  it  is  supposed  he  refers  he  was  convicted  of  various 
immoralities  and  suspended.  The  next  year,  agreeable  to  his  own  request 
and  that  of  others,  the  Synod  agreed  to  review  their  deed  respecting  him,  and 
the  following  year  it  was  reviewed  and  confirmed. 

75th.  To  the  seventy-fifth  Interrogatory  he  saith — Messrs.  Anderson,  Gor- 
don and  others  in  the  paper  referred  to  do  not  accuse  the  Synod  of  asserting 
an  untruth  or  misrepresentation,  &c.;  but  they  say  of  a  certain  decision  relat- 


267 

ing  to  Mr.  Stark,  that  it  asserts  an  untruth;  it  misrepresents,  Sec;  that  is,  in 
the  way  of  argument  or  conclusion  from  certain  premises  in  the  opinion  of  the 
protesters  not  warranting  the  deed  against  which  they  protest. 

76th.  To  the  seventy-sixth  Interrogatory  he  saith — The  original  seceders 
were  violently  excluded  from  their  church  by  the  civic  authority,  and  did  not 
voluntarily  give  them  up. 

77th.  To  the  soventy-seventh  Interrogatory  he  saith — In  the  case  of  Mr. 
Marshal,  those  who  held  the  church,  did  not  plead  or  obtain  it  on  the  ground 
of  their  being  a  majority,  but  because  Mr.  i^larshal  had,  as  they  alleged, 
been  deposed  from  the  ministry  by  those  of  his  brethren  who  had  formed  the 
union.  •  Much  use  was  also  made  of  his  being  subordinate  to  a  foreign  church ; 
Mr.  Clarkson  held  his  church,  because  those  who  favored  the  union  in  oppo- 
sition to  him  gave  him  no  trouble.  See  memoirs  of  Rev.  William  Marshal, 
p.  p.  32,  34.     Marshal's  vindication  and  other  authorities. 

78th.  To  the  seventy-eighth  Interrogatory  he  saith — Dr.  Alexander  Bul- 
lions, Dr.  Peter  Bullions,  Messrs.  Andrew  Stark,  Archibald  White,  H.  H. 
Blair,  D.  Stalker,  Thomas  Goodwillie  and  Wm.  Pringle,  have  departed  from 
the  principles,  discipline  and  government  of  the  Associate  Church. 

79lh.  To  the  seventy-ninth  Interrogatory  he  saith — I  have  read  the  two 
first  volumes  of  the  Associate  Presbyterian  Magazine,  and  have  seen  se- 
veral numbers  of  the  third  volume.  I  think  the  doctrine,  faith  and  practice 
maintained  therein  a  departure  from  the  doctrine,  faith  and  practice  of  the  As- 
sociate Church,  particularly  in  regard  to  the  subordination  which  is  due  to 
Church  or  Ecclesiastical  Courts. 

SOth.  To  the  eightieth  Interrogatory  he  saith — I  believe  it  to  be  so  from  the 
prospectus  of  t!ie  work. 

Slst.  To  the  eighty-first  Interrogatory  he  saith — I  have  read  and  deliberate- 
ly considered  them. 

82d.  To  the  eighty-second  Interrogatory  he  saith — Said  answers  are  in  se- 
veral respects  not  agreeable  to  the  doctrmes,  government  and  discipline,  faith 
and  practice  of  the  Associate  Church,  particularly  wherein  they  contradict  the 
Plaintiffs'  Bill  filed  in  this  suit. 

83d.  To  the  eighty-third   Interrogatory  he    saith — No  such    alteration  has 
taken  place  since  I  have  been  ti  member  of  that  body  in  any  material  thing. 
S4th.  To  the  eighty-fourth  Interrogatory  he  saith — They  have. 
S5th.  To  the  eighty-fifth  Interrogatory  he  saith — I  have  been  in  the  habit  of 
attending  the  annual  meeting  of  Synod  for  about  twenty-two  years;  have  not 
been  absent  except  at  two  or  three  meetings.     I  have  never  known  the  Synod 
to  find  an   individual    guilty,   and  to  inflict  censures    with  evidence  or  proof  of 
his  guilt.  I  think  such  a  thing  could  not  have  occurred  without  my  knowing  it. 
86th.  To  the  eighiy-sixili  Interrogaiory  he  saith — The  case  of  the  Presby- 
tery of  Vermont  came  before  the  Synod,  regularly  upon  the  complaint  of  the 
Presbytery  of  Cambridge.     The  Synod  had  jurisdiction  in  the  case,  and  the 
proceedings  of  the  Synod  were  legal  and  regular. 

87th.  To  the  eighty-seventh  Interrogatory  he  saith — The  Presbytery  of  Ver- 
mont was  regularly  suspended  for  trial,  and  their  own  report  made  to  Synod 
furnished  sufficient  proof  of  their  guilt. 

88ih.  To  the  eighty-eighth  Interrogatory  he  saith — The  Presbytery  of  Cam- 
bridge not  being  parties  in  the  case  had  a  right  to  vote  in  Synod  in  the  case  of 
the  Presbytery  of  Vermont. 

89th.  To  the  eighty-ninth  Interrogatory  he  saith — The  Synod  did  not  so 
adjudge,  but  appointed  a  commission  to  deal  with  them  to  rebuke  and  restore 
them  in  the  event  of  their  submission  or  suspend  the  members  or  the  Presby- 
tery, should  they  refuse  submission. 


269 

90th.  To  the  ninetieth  Interrogatory  he  sai'h — Tlic  Presbytf^ry  of  Vcrmonr 
was  not  justifiable  in  attempting  to  restore  Doct,  Bullions,  had  his  standing 
been  good,  he  could  not  have  been  received  as  a  member  of  the  Presbytery  of 
Vermont,  seeing  he  and  his  Congregation  were  within  the  bounds  of  another 
Presbytery  and  had  never  been  attached  by  the  Synod  to  the  Presbytery  of 
Vermont,  the  act  of  that  Presbytery  in  restoring  him  was  null  and  void,  as  be- 
ing by  an  incompetent  Judge  (Perdivan,  Book  4,  title  5,  sec,  6.)  The  Synod 
had  referred  Dr.  Bullions,  to  his  own  Presbytery,  and  the  Presbytery  of  Ver- 
mont had  no  jurisdiction  in  the  case.  The  act  was  also  contrary  to  a  rule  of 
Church  government,  which  discharges  inferior  judicatories  irom  reposing 
minister  deposed  by  the  superior,  (Perdivan,  Book  4,  title  4th,  sec.  21st.)  "  Sen- 
tences of  superior  judicatories  should  stand  effectual  till  they  be  taken  away 
by  themselves."  OfTences  should  also  be  restored  by  the  same  authority 
which  censure  them.     Ass.  Ref.  discipline  Ch.  4,  sec.  9  and  11. 

91st.  To  the  ninety- first  Interrogatory  he  saith — It  is  customary  in  the  case 
mentioned,  to  connect  with  the  sentence  of  deposition  the  sentence  of  the  les- 
ser excommunication. 

92nd.  To  the  ninety  second  Interrogatory  he  saith. — The  Synod  did  refer 
Doct.  Bullions  to  the  Presbytery  of  Cambridge,  for  further  dealing  which  they 
would  not  have  done  had  he  been  placed  under  the  sentence  of  the  greater 
excommunication. 

93rd.  To  the  ninety-third  Interrogatory  he  saith. — The  Presbytery  of  Ver- 
mont, had  no  such  right  under  the  circumstances  stated. 

94th.  To  the  ninety-fourth  Interrogatory  he  saith.— They  have  not. 
95th,  To  the  ninty-fifth  Interrogatory  he   saith — Mr.  David   Bullions,   was 
licensed  to  preach  in  1841,  and  appointed  in  various  western   Presbyteries  till 
.March,  1842,  then  "discretionary"  April  and  May. 

96th.  To  the  ninety-sixth  Interrogatory  he  saith — They  did. 
97th.  To  the  ninety-seventh  Interrogatory  he  saith — I   have  read   or  heard 
the  said  proceedings  of  the  Presbytery  of  Cambridge. 

98ih.  To  the  ninety-eighth  Interrogatory  he  saiih— The  Presbytery  of  Cam- 
bridge had  jurisdiction  in  his  case,  and  had  a  legal  right  to  try  and  censure 
him. 

99th.  To  the  ninety-ninth  Interrogatory  he  saith — Mr.  David  Bullions  is  not 
now  a  minister  or  member  of  the  Associate  Church  in  good  standing,  nor  has 
he  a  right  to  officiate  as  a  minister  in  said  Church. 

100th.  To  the  Hundredth  Interrogatory  he  saith — Said  book  of  discipline 
is  authority,  so  far  as  it  sets  forth  the  same  rules  and  order  of  proceedure  as 
Presbyterian  bodies  in  general. 

101st.  To  the  one  hundred  and  first  Interrogatory  he  saith — The  clause  re- 
ferred to  does  not  limit,  but  enforce  submission. 

102nd.  To  the  one  hundred  and  second  Interrogatory  he  saith — The  Asso- 
ciate Synod  met  on  the  fourth  Wednesday  of  May,  lS41,  at  Washington,  Penn- 
sylvania, and  on  the  fourth  Wednesday  of  May,  1842,  at  Xenia,  Ohio. 

103rd.  To  the  one  hundred  and  third  Interrogatory  he  saith— Said  Synod 
met  at  no  other  times  or  places  in  said  years,  of  1841  and  1842. 

104lh.  To  the   one  hundred  and   fourth  Interrogatory  he  saith— They  did 

not. 

105th.  To  the  one  hundred  and  fifth  Interrogatory  he  saith— There  is  such 
a  body  and  the  members  thereof  are  named  in  the  foregoing  interrogatory  at 
No.  78,  so  far  as  I  know  except  David  Bullions,  and  perhaps  one  other. 

106th.  To  the  one  hundred  and  sixth  Interrogatory  he  saith— All  those  known 
to  me  with  the  above  exception  or  exceptions  have  been  ministers  of  the  As- 


269 

sociate  Church,  bat  have  been  suspended,  or  deposed,  and  are  no  longer  min- 
is'ers  of  said  Churcli,  and  are  not  recognized  by  lier  as  having  any  right  what- 
ever lo  exercise  the  office  of  the  ministry. 

107th.  To  the  one  hundred  and  seventh  Interrogatory  he  saiih — Such  consci- 
entious belief  does  noi  in  any  respect  effect  the  standing  of  such  ministers  in 
the  Associate  Church,  nor  does  it  effect  the  justice  or  binding  nature  of  the 
sentence. 

108th.  To  the  one  hundred  and  eighth  Interrogatory  he  saith — They  have 
not. 

109th.  To  the  one  hundred  and  ninth  Interrogatory  he  saith — They  have. 

110th.  To  the  one  hundred  and  tenth  Interroga'ory  he  saith — The  satement 
made  by  Andrew  Stark,  referred  to  is  a  mere  caricature  of  ihe  proceedings  of 
Synod  as  the  minue  will  show. 

Las;lv  he  saiih — I  know  no  hing  furiher  ma'erial  to  this  cause. 


1st.  To  the  first  cross-In 'errogaory  he  sai  h — I  know  the  his'ory  of  the  As- 
sociate Church  as  set  for'h  in  ihe  bill  of  complain',  'o  be  correct  from  different 
works  rela'ing  to  the  hisory  of  said  Church,  such  as  "Wilsons  defence," 
"Gibb's  display,"  ihe  original  publica'ions  quo'ed  in  "Gibb's  display"  men- 
tioned 1st  vol.,  page  17  and  18,  Narraiion  and  testimony  of  the  Associate 
Church  McKerrows  history  of  the  secession,  and  o'her  works.  My  knowledge 
of  these  things  is  not  a  matter  of  opinion  merely,  but  belief  founded  on  well 
au'hentica'ed  historical  documen's.  I  am  not  aware  of  any  material  differ- 
ence of  opinion  among  persons  well  acquainted  wiih  the  subject,  whether  mem- 
bers or  claiining  to  be  membeis  of  the  Associate  Church. 

2nd.  To  the  second  cross-Inienoga'oiy  he  sai'h — The  authorities  on  which 
my  answer  to  the  8'h  direct  in'errogaiory,  is  based,  are  especially  the  "West- 
minster confession  of  fai  h,"  the  testimony  of  the  Associa'e  Church,  and  her 
book  of  discipline  enacted  in  1817.  I  could  not  convenien'ly  refer  to  all  the 
authorities,  lequired  in  this  and  o'her  questions,  by  page,  chapter,  section,  &c.„ 
but  would  mention  the  30ih  and  3lst  chap'ers  of  the  confession  and  the  form- 
ula for  ordination,  my  answer  is  not  a  mere  matter  of  opinion,  but  certain 
knowledge  and  fixed  belief.  Others  claiming  to  be  members  may  differ  ia 
opinion  with  me,  but  of  the  extent  and  weight  of  their  opinions  I  cannot  say. 

3rd.  To  the  third  cross-Interrogatory  he  saith — I  do  not  know  that  I  have 
seen  the  original  minutes  of  the  Presbytery  of  Cambridge,  referred  to  in  the- 
tenth  interrogatory,  but  heard  them  read  in  Synod,  during  the  trial  of  Doctor 
Bullions.  I  have  seen  extracts  both  written  and  printed  of  said  minutes,  and 
am  acquainted  with  the  said  minutes,  and  can  swear  that  I  am  acquainted  with 
all  the  minutes  of  said  Presbytery  connected  with  the  case  of  Doctor  BullionSi 
so  far  as  material  to  the  merits  of  the  case.  In  reply  to  the  latter  part  of  the 
cross-interrogatory,  I  refer  to  a  copy  of  said  minutes  furnished  me  by  A.  An- 
derson, Clerk  of  the  said  Presbytery,  some  months  since.  I  have  them  now 
before  me,  and  attach  them  to  my  deposition  as  part  of  my  answer.  I  have 
not  memorized  these  proceedings,  so  as  to  detail  them  "totidem  verbis,"  but 
am  acquainted  substantially  with  all  that  is  therein  detailed,  and  as  the  best  an- 
swer to  the  interrogatory,  transmit  the  said  copy  herewith. 

4th.  To  the  fourth  cross-Interrogatory  he  saith — I  have  not  the  books  to  re- 
fer to  further  than  I  have  already  referred  in  my  answer  to  the  direct  inter* 
rogatories  On  this  subject  I  would  refer  to  the  common  rules  and  regulation* 
of  all  courts,  civil  and  ecclesiastical. 

5th.  To  the  fifth  cross-Interrogatory  he  saith — The  first  part  of  this  inter- 


i>70 

rogatory  I  have  answered  in  reply  lu  the  tiuid  13th  interrogatory.  Some  per- 
sons cUiiming  to  be  members,  profess  to  diller  i'rom  mc  in  opinion,  but  1  am 
confident  in  my  belief  of  the  correctness  of  the  rule  referred  to. 

6th.  To  the  sixth  cross-Interrogatory  he  saith — I  refer  as  an  answer  to  the 
direct  interrogatory  to  Ass.  book  of  discipline,  art.  12th.  My  answer  is  not  a 
matter  of  opinion,  but  a  reference  to  a  clearly  established  rule, — a  rule  also 
obviously  necessary. 

7th.  To  the  seventh  cross-Interrogatory  he  saith — Dr.  Bullions  may  have 
made  the  statements  mentioned  in  this  cross-interrogatory,  although  1  do  not 
recollect  them.  I  have  answered  this  interrogatory  as  fully  as  I  can,  in  my 
answer  to  the  direct  interrogator3^ 

Sth.  To  the  eighth  cross-jnterrogatory  he  saith — I  have  a  copy  of  the  min- 
utes of  the  Presbytery  referred  to,  as  already  stated.  My  answer  is  not  mat- 
ter of  opinion,  but  firm  belief,  and  based  on  the  obvious  necessity  and  propri- 
ety of  the  course  adopted.  I  believe  the  respondents  in  this  case  dilier  with 
me  in  opinion  on  this  and  man}'  other  matters  set  forth,  or  profess  to  do  so. 

9th.  To  the  ninth  cross-Interrogatory  he  saith — I  refer  to  Perdivan  already 
cited  :  but  cannot  give  the  precise  chapter  and  book  ;  but  thinks  he  has  alrea- 
dy given.  It  is  not  in  accordance  with  the  discipline  and  government  of  the 
Associate  Church  to  exclude  a  member  in  the  manner  se  for  h  in  ihe  cross-in- 
terrogaiory.  They  may  be  excluded  on  mere  mo'ion  or  resolu  ion,  bui  not 
without  evidence  or  opporiuni  y  of  being  heard.  Any  member  may  object  to 
ano'hers  silting  in  a  particular  case.  The  au  hority  for  this  answer  is  the  book 
of  discipline  in  general. 

■  10  h.  To  the  ten'h  cross-Interroga  ory  he  saith — I  know  that  Messrs.  Good- 
willie  and  Pringle  were  not  compeent.  judges  because  ihe  Presbytery  so  de- 
termined on  good  and  sutficien'  grounds.  Their  cases  were  alike^and  ihey  were 
both  sei  aside  on  account  of  similar  circumstances,  to  wit  :  near  relaionship 
and  panialiiy.  I  cannot  now  refer  'o  an  au  hori'V  in  support  of  my  answer  to 
the  nineieenih  inierroga'ory ;  but  am  confident,  that  by  rules  of  discipline  and 
obvious  propriety,  persons  should  not  be  allowed  to  judge  in  the  case  of  an- 
other while  standing  themselves  in  the  same  circumstances. 

11th.  To  the  eleventh  cross-Interrogatory  he  saith — I  have  no  authorities  to 
cite  beyond  those  already  quoted  in  my  direct  answers,  and  refer  to  my  former 
answers,  as  to  matters  of  opinion  ;  and  I  do  not  know  that  I  difler  from  other 
members  of  the  church  on  those  subjects. 

12th.  To  the  eleventh  cross-Interrogatory  he  saith — Persons  are  bound  to  sub- 
mit in  a  personal  cause  to  decisions  which  may  be  wrong  and  injurious  ;  but 
are  not  bound  to  such  submission  wherein  injiuy  is  done  to  the  public  cause  of 
religion.  I  refer  to  Wilson's  defence  of  reformation  principles  and  Protestant 
writers  in  general  who  have  treated  of  the  subject. 

13th.  To  the  thirteenth  cross-Interrogatory  he  saith — I  have  answered  this 
in  my  reply  to  the  last  cross-interrogatory ;  and  further  refer  to  the  Scriptures 
as  enjoining  the  duty  of  suffering  WTongfully  in  a  personal  cause.  I  refer  to 
the  authorities  already  cited  in  my  answers  to  the  said  interrogatories. 

14th.  To  the  fourteenth  cross-Interrogatory  he  saith — The  evidence  refer- 
red to  by  me  in  answer  to  the  32d  direct  interrogatory  was  the  knowledge  of 
the  Presbytery  of  what  took  place  in  their  presence.  To  the  33d  I  refer  to  his 
ordination  vows,  and  their  solemn  promise  of  submission  to  church  courts,  im- 
plied in  their  profession.  My  answer  is  matter  of  firm  belief  in  distinction 
from  mere  opinion,  and  my  opinion  and  firm  belief  is  that  Dr.  Bullions  and  his 
congregation  were  bound  b}^  decision  of  Synod  in  his  case ;  others  claiming  to 
be  members,  and  perhaps  some  few  in  the  church,  profess  to  differ  with  me  in 


271 

opinion.     If  Mr.  Stark  differs  with  me  in  opinion  I  am  confident  he  is  wrong. 

15th.  To  the  fifteenth  cross-Interrogatory  he  saith  — I  have  already  cited 
such  authorities  as  I  supposed  to  be  necessary  in  answer  to  these  or  other  di- 
rect interrogatories  and  cross  interrogatories  I  have  no  further  authorities  to 
cite.  My  answers  to  these  interrogatories  are  not  matter  of  opinion,  but 
founded  on  rules  of  discipline  of  obvious  propriety  and  general  usage.  As  to 
difference  of  opinion  I  have  already  answered. 

16th.  To  the  sixteenth  cross-Interrogatory  he  saith — Mr.  Erskine  and  others 
did  not  continue  in  good  standing  in  the  established  church,  but  in  a  state  of 
separation  from  it,  because  they  were  not  convicted  of  any  departure  from  the 
word  of  God  or  the  received  standard  of  the  church.  My  knowledge  of  these- 
things  is  derived  from  the  history  of  the  church  at  that  day  and  other  wri- 
tings. My  answer  is  not  matter  of  opinion  but  of  belief  founded  on  these 
writings. 

17th.  To  the  seventeenth  cross-Interrogatory  he  saith — I  refer  to  the  Asso- 
ciate and  Associate  Reformed  Books  of  discipline  and  other  authorities. 

19th.  To  the  nineteenth  cross-Interrogatory  he  saith — I  have  no  authorities 
to  cite  in  relation  to  these  answers  further  than  already  cited,  and  nothing 
further  to  say  on  matters  of  opinion  and  differences  of  opinion  than  I  have  al- 
ready several  times  stated  in  these  answers,  nor  anything  further  as  to  mis- 
takes of  opinion. 

20th.  To  the  twentieth  cross-Interrogatory  he  saith — The  office  of  a  Deacon 
relates  to  the  temporalities  of  the  church,  and  is  fully  set  forth  in  the  acts  of 
the  Apostles  and  the  book  of  discipline  of  the  Associate  Church. 

21st.  To  the  twenty-first  cross-Interrogatory  he  saith — He  may  not  be  im- 
posed as  a  pastor,  but  may  be  sent  to  preach  and  for  other  purposes  without  the 
consent  of  the  congregation  or  against  it.  A  Presbytery  or  Synod  may  inter- 
fere in  the  erection  of  a  church  edifice  or  building  as  to  the  place  and  some 
other  circumstances,  but  not  as  to  the  cost  of  its  erection  or  its  fashion,  if  that 
do  not  interfere  with  the  principles  of  their  profession.  Such  buildings  and 
improvements  may  be  at  the  expense  of  any  who  choose  to  contribute,  and 
are  under  the  control  of  the  congregation,  subject  however  to  the  Presbytery 
and  Synod  in  things  which  relate  to  our  profession,  and  the  due  subordination 
of  such  congregation  to  our  church  courts.  Presbyteries  and  Synod  have  care 
over  the  temporalities  of  the  church  in  the  way  just  stated.  When  opposed 
to  the  word  of  God  and  standards  of  the  church  civil  decisions  may  be  sub- 
mitted to  in  the  way  of  sufi'ering  wrong,  but  are  not  morally  binding,  I  refer 
to  the  confession  of  faith  in  reference  to  Christian  liberty  and  the  power  of 
the  magistrate  in  matters  of  religion,  not  having  convenient  access  to  the 
books.     I  cannot  cite  the  authorities  more  particularly. 

22d.  To  the  twenty-second  cross  Interrogatory  he  saith — Yes,  but  I  have  no 
doubt  as  to  the  correctness  of  my  opinions  in  the  present  case. 

23d.  To  the  twenty- third  Interrogatory  (cross)  he  saith — Bly  answers  to 
these  interrogatories  are  facts  founded  on  well  authenticated  histories  and  not 
matters  of  opinion.  I  refer  to  Frazer's  life  of  Rev.  E.  Erskine  and  R.  Erskine  ; 
also  life  of  Rev.  W.  Wilson  as  authority  for  my  answer  to  the  76th  question. 

24th.  To  the  twenty-fourth  cross-Interrogatory  he  saith — I  know  the  authen~ 
ticity  of  the  Associate  Presbyterian  Magazine,  in  the  same  way  as  I  do  the- 
authenticity  of  any  and  all  other  periodical  works.  The  work  came  to  me  at 
Cannonsburgh,  through  the  post  ofi'ice,  (two  first  volumes,)  since  then  I  have 
seen  numbers  of  the  third  volume  in  the  hands  of  various  individuals.  I  have- 
no  copy  at  hand  of  the  work.  My  view  of  the  principles  of  that  work  is  not 
matter  of  opinion  merely.     As  to  my  opinions,  I  made  no  pretensions  to  infal- 


272 

libilily,  but  believe  tht-y  arc  correct  ;  good  many  of  the  articles  referred  to  are 
arguiuentalive,  as  s  ated  ;  Chaticey  Webster  was  tlie  author  of  sonie  of  ihe 
articles  referred  to  ii)  the  Keligious  Monitor,  and  was  the  editor  of  the  Monitor 
at  the  time  referred  to,  and  is  a  minister  of  good  standing  in  tlie  Associate 
Church.  As  to  his  opinions,  1  do  not  think  he  is  infallible.  I  do  not  think  he 
ditiers  with  me  in  opinion  upon  the  subject  s  ated  ;  my  own  opinion  as  to  the 
duty  of  submission  is  expressed  in  my  answer  to  the  twelfth  cross-interrogato- 
ry. I  do  not  know  .hat  many,  if  any  members  of  the  Associate  Church  differ 
with  me  in  opinion  upon  that  subject ;  as  to  some  claiming  lo  be,  I  believe 
they  differ  wi  h  me.  For  authorises  as  requested,  I  refer  to  Westminster 
Confession  of  fai'h  ;  Book  of  Discipline  of  the  Associa'e  Church,  and  the 
minu'es  of  the  Synod  for  several  years  past. 

25lh.  To  ihe  twenty-fifih  cross-Interrogatory  he  saith — I  know  said  answers 
to  be  false,  as  relates  o  the  doctrines,  &c.  of  the  Associate  Church,  from  a 
comparison  of  them,  with  the  standards  of  said  Church,  and  I  refer  as  author- 
ity lo  the  Wes' minster  Confession  of  Faith,  the  Associate  Testimony  and 
Book  of  Discipline,  and  my  answer  is  not  matter  of  opinion,  but  founded  on 
«.n  acquaintance  with  the  standards  of  the  Church.  The  Defendants  and  oth- 
ers may  differ  wiih  me  in  opinion  on  these  subjec's,  but  if  so  I  think  fhem 
mistaken. 

26th.  To  the  twen'y-sixth  Interrogatory  (cross)  he  saith — The  clause  refer- 
red to  as  already  stated,  is  intended  to  enforce  submission,  and  is  I  believe, 
generally  so  viewed  by  all  members  of  the  Church.  As  to  others,  I  cannot 
be  responsible  for  their  opinions.  The  respondents  may  view  them  differen  - 
ly.     I  have  no  references  or  authorities  to  state. 

27th.  To  the  twenty-seventh  cross-Interrpgatory  he  saith — On  the  present 
trial  of  Doctor  Bullions  before  Synod,  I  voted  generally  with  the  majority 
and  against  him,  although  on  former  occasions,  I  had  sometimes  voted  in  his 
■favor.  I  voted  also  against  the  Presbytery  of  Vermont,  on  the  most  impor- 
tant questions  arising  upon  their  trial  and  when  they  were  suspended,  and  my 
name  is  recorded  among  the  a3^es  and  noes  in  the  minutes. 

To  the  last  cross-Interrogatory  he  saith — I  recollect  of  nothing  now  materi- 
al in  the  case.  THOMAS  BEVERIDGE. 

Adjourned  to  meet  at  the  Clerk's  office,  in  Washington,  on  the  twenty- 
eighth  dayo-f  June  ensuing.. 

"The  foregoing  examination  of  Dr.  Thomas  Beveridge  taken  and  reduced  to 
writing  and  sworn  to,  15th  day  of  May,  1843,  and  on  day  subsequently  noted. 

Jno.  L.  Gow,      1  ^        .    . 

T  fTtT  }  Commissioners. 

James  Watson,    ) 

And  now,  to  wit,  June  28,  1843.  James  Ramsey,  D.  D.,  Professor  of  He- 
i)rew  in  Jefferson  College,  Cannonsburgh,  being  duly  and  publicly  sworn,  doth 
depose  and  say  as  follows,  to  wit : 

To  the  first  Interrogatory  he  saith — My  name,  James  Ramsey ;  I  am  a  min- 
ister of  the  Gospel  in  the  Associate  Presbyterian  Church,  and  Professor  of 
Hebrew  in  Jefferson  College,  Washington  county,  and  resident  in  the  town  of 
Cannonsburgh,  County  of  Washington,  and  State  of  Pennsylvania. 

2d.  To  the  second  Interrogatory  he  saith — I  have  had  a  general  knowledge 
•of  William  Stevenson,  one  of  the  complainants,  and  Dr.  Bullions  of  the 
defendants,  for  a  number  of  years.  My  acquaintance  with  the  others  is  very 
slight. 

3d.  To  the  third  Interrogatory  he  saith — I  am  now  a  minister  of  the  Asso- 
ciate Church,  and  have  been  for  about  forty  years. 

4th.  To  the  fourth  Interrogatory  he  saith— I  am. 


273 

6th,  To  the  fifth  Interrogatory  he  saith — 1  believe  the  statement  in  the  bill 
of  complaint  is  correct. 

6th.  To  the  sixth  Interrogatory  he  saith — The  Associate  Church  govern- 
ment is  Presbyterial ;  and  her  members  are  bound  to  submission  and  obedi- 
ence, and  an  obstinate  refusal  to  submission  on  the  part  of  any  of  the  members 
would  expose  them  to  expulsion. 

7th.  To  the  seventh  Interrogatory  he  saith — I  am,  and  the  judicatories  and 
their  powers  and  duties  as  stated  in  the  said  bill  of  complaint  are  correctly  set 
forth  so  far  as  stated. 

8th.  To  the  eighth  Interrogatory  he  saith — They  are,  as  before  answered. 

9th.  To  the  ninth  Interrogatory  he  saith — I  was  a  member  of  Synod  in  1838, 
and  present  when  Dr.  Bullions'  case  came  before  it. 

10th.  To  the  tenth  Interrogatory  he  saith — I  heard  the  minutes  of  Presby- 
tery referred  to,  read  in  Synod  when  the  case  of  Dr.  Bullions  was  under  con- 
sideration, and  when  his  deposition  was  confirmed. 

11th.  To  the  eleventh  Interrogatory  he  saith — It  is  not  necessary  in  such  a 
case  to  prove  a  contempt,  but  the  court  may  proceed  upon  its  own  knowledge. 

12th.  To  the  twelfth  Interrogatory  he  saith — To  me  it  appears  that  from  tho 
minutes  of  the  Presbytery  thej^  ascertained  the  offence  by  their  own  senses 
and  therefore  did  not  resolve  to  rebuke  him  without  first  having  ascertained 
his  offence. 

13th.  To  the  thirteenth  Interrogatory  he  saith — When  a  protest  and  appeal 
is  oflered  the  judicatory  is  to  consider  whether  they  will  admit  it  or  not ;  if 
they  admit  the  cause  is  left  to  the  judgment  of  the  superior  court,  but  if  they 
reject  they  may  proceed  in  the  trial.  See  book  dis.  of  Asso.  Syn.,  Art.  12, 
page  60. 

14th.  To  the  fourteenth  Interrogatory  he  saith — When  they  have  rejected 
the  protest  and  appeal,  they  may  proceed  in  the  trial  of  the  case  as  if  no  such 
appeal  and  protest  had  been  offered  ;  and  if  the  party  thinks  himself  aggriev- 
ed he  can  bring  the  whole  case  before  the  superior  judicatory  by  complaint  and 
remonstrance.  The  court  may  proceed,  and  in  case  of  contumacy  on  the  part 
of  a  minister  they  may  inflict  the  highest  censure  in  the  church,  viz :  excom- 
munication. 

15th.  To  the  fifteenth  Interrogatory  he  saith — The  case  of  Dr.  Bullions  did 
not  come  before  Synod  by  protest  and  appeal,  and  I  have  no  recollection  of  the 
matters  inquired  of  in  the  interrogatory. 

16th.  To  the  sixteenth  Interrogatory  he  saith — This  case  came  before  Synod 
by  a  memorial  and  complaint  of  Dr.  Bullions,  against  the  Presbytery  of  Cam- 
bridge  for  certain  of  their  proceedings  against  him,  and  as  he  did  not  give  due 
notice  to  the  Presbytery  of  his  bringing  said  memorial  and  complaint,  the  case 
could  not  have  been  legally  tried  without  the  Presbytery's  consent,  but  tha 
Presbytery  did  consent  and  the  trial  went  on,  and  this  is  the  only  way  in  which 
it  could  be  brought  on. 

17th.  To  the  seventeenth  Interrogatory  he  saith— They  did. 
18th.  To  the  eighteenth  Interrogatory  he  saith — According  to  my  under- 
standing, each  court  is  judge  of  the  competency  of  its  own  members  and  may 
exclude  from  voting  any  member  on  their  own  knowledge  for  partiality  or  re- 
lationship, in  a  particular  case. 

19th.  To  the  nineteenth  Interrogatory  he  saith — As  neither  Messrs.  Good- 
willie  nor  Pringle  were  competent  Judges  in  the  case  of  Dr.  Bullions,  as  one 
was  his  son-in-law,  and  the  other  his  brother-in-law,  it  was  not  improper  to 
connect  them  in  the  same  resolution. 

20th.  To  the  twentieth  Interrogatory  he  saith- — Neither  Dr.  Bullions,  net 
35 


274 

any  of  the  members  of  the  Presbytery  of  Cambridjre,  who  were  excluded  from 
voting  in  his  case,  did  so  far  as  I  remember,  bring  a  protest  before  Synod 
against  tlieir  exclusion  from  voting. 

21st.  To  the  twenty-lirst  Interrogatory  he  saith — He  is  not. 

22nd.   To  the  twenty-second  Interrogatory  lie  saith — It  can  not. 

23rd.  To  the  twenty-third  Interrogatory  he  saith — It  was  an  offence  to  wit, 
slander  rnd  contempt  according  to  circumstances  stated  in  the  interrogatory. 

24th.  To  the  twenty-fourth  Interrogatory  he  saith — Such  charges  did  not 
disqualify  individuals  not  named,  nor  after  being  named,  unless  they  were  to 
be  put  on  trial  for  the  charges,  would  they  be  disqualified  from  sitting  and  vo- 
ting in  Dr.  Bullion's  case. 

25th.  To  the  twenty-fifth  Interrogatory  he  saith — According  to  my  exami- 
nation of  the  minutes  of  that  Presbytery,  Dr.  Bullions  appeared  to  deny  their 
authority  to  try  him  at  all,  which  if  so  was  unwarrantable. 

26th.  To  the  twenty-sixth  Interrogatory  he  saith — It  is. 

27th.  To  the  twenty-seventh  Interrogatory  he  saith — Dr.  Bullions  was  bound 
by  his  ordination  vows,  the  principles  and  discipline  of  the  Associate  Church, 
and  the  word  of  God,  to  submit  to  the  decisions  of  suspension,  and  deposition 
by  the  Presbytery  against  him,  till  it  was  reversed  or  confirmed  by  Synod,  and 
his  Congregation  were  bound  to  submit  to  it  also. 

28th.  To  the  twenty-eighth  Interrogatory  he  saith — The  decision  of  Synod 
in  the  cases  stated  in  the  interrogatory,  is  final  and  conclusive  on  the  parties, 
and  the  whole  Associate  Church. 

29th.  To  the  twenty-ninth  Interrogatory  he  saith — It  is. 

30th.  To  the  thirtieth  Interrogatory  he  saith — In  ordinary  cases  three  cita- 
tions should  be  given,  and  ten  days  should  elapse  between  the  first  and  second, 
but  not  between  the  second  and  third. 

31st.  To  the  thirty-first  Interrogatory  he  saith — They  were  bound  to  submit,, 
and  on  no  other  condition  could  they  be  retained  in  the  Cliurch,  notwithstand- 
ing their  coscientious  belief. 

32d.  To  the  thirty-second  Interrogatory  he  saith — It  is  not  true,  as  the  whole 
Presbytery  of  Cambridge  were  witnesses  of  the  slander  and  contempt  with 
which  they  charged  him. 

33d.  To  the  thirty-thi  d  Interrogatory  he  saith — It  is  not  true. 

34th.     To  the  thirty-fourth  Interrogatory  he  saith — It  is  not  true, 

35th.  To  the  thirty-fifth  Interrogatory  he  saith — It  is  a  solemn  declaration 
of  a  person  not  agreeing  with  the  decision  against  which  he  protests,  but  he 
derives  no  authority  from  his  protest  to  act  in  opposition  to  the  decision  against 
which  he  protests. 

36ih.  To  the  thirty-sixth  Interrogatory  he  saith — The  conclusion  of  the  pa- 
pers signed  by  Dr.  Bullions  in  the  printed  minutes  of  the  Synod  of  Jnne,  1839,. 
pages  23  and  24,  is  as  I  understand  it,  a  declinature  of  the  authority  of  Synod 
and  an  abandonment  of  the  Associate  Church. 

37th.  To  the  thirty-seventh  Interrogatory  he  saith — It  is  an  honor  to  minis- 
ters of  the  Secession  or  any  other  Church,  in  any  century,  to  protest  against 
the  corrupt  decisions  of  an  erroneous  Synod  or  general  assembly,  and  to  ex- 
ercise their  ministry  under  their  protest,  and  in  this  way  vindicate  the  word 
of  God ;  but  the  conduct  of  Dr.  Bullions  and  that  of  those  ministers  with 
whom  he  is  compared  by  Mr.  Stark,  does  not  appear  to  be  similar.  They 
contended  against  error  in  doctrine  and  the  oppression  of  the  christian  people 
in  practice.  He  against  the  censures  of  the  church  pronounced  on  him  for  slan- 
dering individuals  and  a  contemptuons  opposition  to  the  church  courts  to  which 
he  is  subject  in  the  Lord. 

38th.  To  the  thirty-eighth  Interrogatory  he  saith— I  think  they  did  not. 


275 

39th.  To  the  thirty-ninth  Interrogatory  he  saith — I  think  they  did  not  de- 
part from  any  rules  or  usages,  which  were  necessary  to  give  validity  to  their 
sentence  against  Dr.  Bullions. 

40th.  To  the  fortieth  Interrogatory  he  saith — Synod  did  not. 

41st.  To  the  forty-first  Interrogatory  he  saith — It  was  not, 

42d.  To  the  forty-second  Interrogatory  he  saith — It  was. 

43d.  To  the  forty-third  Interrogatory  he  saith — It  was  an  offence  being  a 
contempt  of  the   Synod's  authority. 

44th.  To  the  forty-fourth  Interrogatory  he  saith — It  was,  and  the  congrega- 
tion thus  acting,  were  equally  guilty  with  Dr.  Bullions. 

4oth.  To  the  forty-fifth  Interrogatory  he  saith — It  was. 

46th.  To  the  forty-sixth  Interrogatory  he  saith — Dr.  Bullions  and  those  who 
adhere  to  him  are  not  in  good  standing  in  the  Associate  Ch,  and  they  cannot 
be  admitted  to  followship  in  said  church,  while  they  continue  in  their  present 
.course. 

47th.  To  the  forty-seventh  Interrogatory  he  saith — Dr.  Bullions'  protest 
against  the  decision  of  Synod,  confirming  his  deposition,  did  not  give  him  a 
right  to  officiate  as  a  minister  or  enjoy  any  privilege  in  the  church,  much  less 
did  his  declinature  do  so. 

4Sth.  To  the  forty-eighth  Interrogatory  he  saith — Mr.  Erskine  and  his 
brethren,  siding  with  him,  did  not  continue  in  good  standing  in  the  established 
church  after  they  were  deposed. 

49th.  To  the  forty-ninth  Interrogatory  he  saith — For  answer  to  this  Interro- 
gatory I  refer  to  my  answer  to  the  preceding  thirty-seventh  which  is  answer 
to  this.     (Latter  part  of  the  answer.) 

53d.  To  the  fifty-third  Interrogatory  he  saith — Synod  may  in  such  cases 
appoint  commissioners  when  divisions  or  difficulties  exist  to  heal  and  reconcile 
the  same. 

54th.  To  the  fifty-fourth  Interrogatory  he  saith — It  is  the  duty  of  such  con- 
gregation and  their  trustees  to  open  the  doors  of  their  chvirch  to  such  com- 
missioners, and  afford  all  such  facilities  to  and  with  the  congregation,  as  will 
carry  out  the  benevolent  intentions  of  the  Synod. 

62d.  To  the  sixty-second  Interrogatory  he  saith — It  was  consistent  with  the 
powers  of  the  Presbytery  of  Cambridge  to  pass  the  deed  referred  to  in  Ex- 
hibit K. 

63d.  To  the  sixty-third  Interrogatory  he  saith — The  deed  of  Presbytery 
(Exhibit  K)  authorized  the  subordinate  members  to  act  as  the  session  of  the 
Associate  Congregation  of  Cambridge,  and  to  proceed  against  the  insubordi- 
nate members  of  the  congregation,  according  to  the  rules  of  the  church. 

64th.  To  the  sixty-fourth  Interrogatory  he  saith  —The  session,  thus  recog- 
nized, were  bound  to  proceed  and  call  before  them  any  member  or  members 
either  of  session  or  congregation,  who  were  charged  with  insubordination  in 
attending  on  the  ministration  of  Dr.  Bullions,  and  deal  with  them,  according 
to  the  books  of  discipline  of  said  church,  or  at  least  they  were  so  authorized  to 
do  by  said  deed. 

66th.  To  the  sixty-sixth  Interrogatory  he  saith — The  censure  ultimately 
due  to  those  stated  in  the  interrogatory  is  to  be  finally  cut  ofi'from  the  church. 
67th.  To  the  sixty-seventh  Interrogatory  he  saith — The  book  of  discipline, 
published  in  1S17,  mentions  ministers,  elders  and  deacons  as  office  bearers  in 
the  church,  and  limits  the  right  of  electing  such  to  those  who  are  in  full  com- 
munion, but  says  nothing  of  Trustees,  .dis.  part  first,  art.  10. 

68th.  To  the  sixty-eighth  Interrogatory  he  saith — In  congregations  where 
Trustees  are  appointed,  they  do,  as  I  apprehend,  act  at  least  in  part  as  dea- 
cons, and  if  so,  it  is  most  consonent  to  the  rules  of  the  Associate  Church  that 


276 

none  but  such,  as  nrc  in  full  comminion,  be  considered  as  eligible  to  that  office- 
See  Book  Dis.  referred  to.  The  Laws  of  the  Associate  Church  are  the  same 
in  the  State  of  New- York  as  elsewhere. 

69th.  To  the  sixty-ninth  Interrogatory  he  saitli — The  lesser  office  in  the 
church  is  included  in  the  greater,  and  tlic  Elders  have  cognizance  and  juris- 
diction over  the  deeds  and.  acts  of  the  Deacons  and  Trustees  as  such,  and.  the 
Trustees  are  accountable  to  the  church  for  their  conduct  in  reference  to  the 
trust  or  charge  committed  to  them    according  to  the  standards  of  our  church. 

70th.  To  the  seventieth  Interrogatory  he  saith — TJie  Synod  had  a  perfect 
right  to  do  so. 

71st.  To  the  seventy-first  Interrogatory  he  saith — They  were  bound  to  re- 
ceive said  commissioners,  and  the  Trustees  had  no  right  to  close  the  church 
doors  against  them. 

7'2d.  To  the  seventy  second  Interrogatory  he  saith — The  courts  of  the  As- 
sociate Church,  though  liable  to  err,  are  the  legally  constituted  judges  of 
what  is  agreeable  to  the  word  of  God,  and  the  subordinate  standards  of  that 
church,  and  their  decisions,  when  they  not  err,  ought  to  be  submitted  to  by 
all  those  who  are  under  their  jurisdiction.  If  any  however  on  the  pretence  of 
their  having  carried  in  their  decisions  treat  them  with  contempt,  they  thereby 
carry  the  cause  immediately  to  God,  himself  who  will  judge  righteously  wheth- 
er they  or  the  court  be  in  error,  and  which  ought  to  be  punished. 

73rd.  To  the  seventy-third  Interrogatory  he  saith — It  is. 

74th.  To  the  seventy-fourth  Interrogatory  he  saith — It  is  not  true,  so  far  as 
my  knowledge  extends. 

75th.  To  the  seventy-fifth  Interrogatory  he  saith — Messrs.  Anderson,  Gor- 
don, Miller  and  others,  at  the  time  alluded  to,  did  not  accuse  the  Synod  of 
asserting  an  untruth  or  misrepresentation,  &c.,  but  they  said  that  a  certain  deed 
of  Synod,  against  which  they  were  giving  reasons  of  protest,  did  affirm  an 
untruth,  misrepresent  and  so  forth 

76th  To  the  seventy-sixth  Interrogatory  he  saith — The  original  ceceders  did 
not  voluntarily  give  their  Churches  up,  but  some  of  them  at  least  were  driven 
from  their  Churches  by  the  civil  authorities,  JVlcKerrow  hist.  Sec  Ch.  page 
137  and  138. 

77th.  To  the  seventy-seventh  Interrogatory  he  saith — The  main  ground  on 
which  Mr.  Marshal  and  his  adherents  lost  the  Church,  was  that  he  was  view- 
ed as  having  been  deposed  by  the  Associate  reform  Synod.  Marshals  vindi- 
cation p.  p.  73  and  74 ;  McCulloch's  mem.  of  Marshal,  p.  p.  32  and  34.  As 
to  Mr.  Clarkson  his  opponents  gave  him  no  trouble  about  his  meeting  house. 
Memoirs  of  Mr.  Marshal  pp.  34. 

78th.  To  the  seventy-eighth  Interrogatory  he  saith — They  have  so  departed 
and  their  names  are  Doct,  Alexander  Bullions,  Doct.  Peter  Bullions,  Messrs 
Andrew  Stark,  Henry  Hughs,  Blair,  A.  White,  David  Stalker,  Thomas  Goo^- 
willie  and  William  Pringle. 

79th.  To  the  seventy-ninth  Interrogatory  he  saith — I  have  read  very  little 
of  the  magazine  referred,  and  am  not  prepared  to  answer  any  thing  further  in 
relation  to  it. 

80th.  To  the  eightieth  Interrogatory  he  saith — I  have  heard  it  so  called  but 
can  affirm  almost  nothing  in  regard  to  it,  from  my  own  personal  knowledge. 

81st  To  the  eighty-first  Interrogatory  he  saith — I  have;  and  have  consider- 
ed their  contents. 

82nd.  To  the  eighty-second  Interrogatory  he  saith — In  some  respects  I 
thought  they  did  not  give  a  true  and  faithful  representation  of  the  doctrine, 
government,  faith  and  practice  of  the  Associate  Church,  and  took  them  to  be 
generally  incorrect,  where  they  contradict  the  bill  of  complaint. 


277 

83d.  To  the  eighty-third  Interrogatory  he  saith — They  have  adopted  a  dif- 
ferent method  of  giving  previous  notice  of  marriages,  and  of  dealing  with 
slave  holders,  but  I  am  not  aware  of  any  other  alterations  since  I  became  a 
member  of  the  body.  Their  way  of  proceeding  Avith  accused  persons  is  the 
same  as  formerly. 

84th.  To  the  eighty-fourth  Interrogatory  he  saith — They  have. 

8-5th.  To  the  eighty-fifth  Interrogatory  he  saith — I  have  been  in  the  habitof 
attending  the  meetings  of  Synod  for  thirty-nine  years.  I  have  not  been  ab- 
sent from  a  meeting  during  that  time  but  twice.  1  have  never  known  the  Sy- 
nod to  find  an  individual  guilty,  and  inflict  censure  upon  him  without  proof  or 
evidence  of  his  guilt  ;  and  I  think  such  a  thing  could  not  have  taken  place 
since  I  became  a  member  of  said  court  without  my  knowledge. 

S6th.  To  the  eighty-sixth  Interrogatory  he  saith — It  came  regularly  before 
Synod  by  the  complaint  of  the  Presbytery  of  Cambridge,  and  by  a  statement 
of  the  facts  complained  of  in  their  own  report.  The  Synod  had  jurisdiction  in 
the  case  and  the  proceedings  of  said  Synod  were  in  most  respects  regular  and 
legal. 

87th.  To  the  eighty-seventh  Interrogatory  he  saith — The  Presbytery  of  Ver- 
mont were  in  May,  1839,  suspended  for  trial  by  a  vote  of  the  Associate  Synod 
regularly  taken,  and  their  own  report  furnished  what  a  majority  of  the  Synod 
considered  sufficient  proof  I  myself  was  not  clear  as  to  the  propriety  of  sus- 
pending the  Vermont  Presbytery  at  that  time,  and  did  not  vote  for  it.  I  thought 
its  conduct  well  deserved  suspension,  but  I  thought  it  had  better  be  delayed 
until  the  then  ensuing  meeting  of  Synod. 

8Sth.  To  the  eighty-eighth  Interrogatory  he  saith — It  was  right,  as  they  were 
not  parties. 

89th.  To  the  eighty-ninth  Interrogatory  he  saith — The  judgment  of  the 
Synod  was  not  that  the  Presbytery  of  Vermont  did  not  deserve  censure,  but 
they  appointed  a  commissioner  to  deal  with  them  to  rebuke  and  restore  them 
if  they  should  duly  acknowledge  their  fault,  or  to  suspend  them  if  they  did 
not  do  it. 

90th.  To  the  ninetieth  Interrogatory  he  saith — They  were  not. 

Adjourned  to  meet  at  the  same  place  on  the  fifth  day  of  July  next.  And 
now  to  wit,  5th  July,  1843,  met,  present  comissioners,  Jn.  L.  Gow  and  James 
Watson  and  examination  of  Dr.  Eamsey  continued. 

91st.  To  the  ninety-first  Interrogatory  he  saith — It  is. 

92d.  To  the  ninety-second  Interrogatory  he  saith — The  Synod  did  refer  Dr 
Bullions  back  to  that  Presbytery  for  further  dealing,  as  appears  from  the  prin- 
ted minutes,  June,  1838;  and  their  doing  so  proves  that  they  considered  him 
as  not  under  the  greater  but  the  lesser  sentence  of  excommunication. 

93d.  To  the  ninety  third  Interrogatory  he  saith — In  the  circumstances  stat- 
ed in  the  interrogatory  the  Presbytery  of  Vermont  would  have  had  no  right  to 
restore  him. 

94th.  To  the  ninety-fourth  Interrogatory  he  saith — Not  to  my  knowledge. 

95th.  To  the  ninety-fifth  Interrogatory  he  saith — He  was  licensed  in  June  or 
July,  1841,  and  was  appointed  to  preach  in  the  Presbyteries  of  Ohio,  Miami, 
Indiana  and  Illinois,  to  the  end  of  March,  1842  ;  then  where  it  might  seem 
to  him  most  proper  during  the  months  of  April  and  May. 

96th.  To  the  ninety-sixth  Interrogatory  he  saith — They  did. 

97th.  To  the  ninety-seventh  Interrogatory  he  saith — I  have  not. 

98th.  To  the  ninety-eighth  Interrogatory  he  saith — They  had. 

99th.  To  the  ninety-ninth  Interrogatory  he  saith — He  is  not,  and  has  no 
right  to  officiate  as  a  minister  in  said  church. 


278 

lOOtli.  To  the  one  hundredth  Interrogatory  he  saith — Though  not  absolute- 
ly binding  the  book  referred  to  is,  I  think,  to  be  had  in  great  regard  in  de- 
termining cases  in  which  our  own  is  deficient  on  account  of  its  brevity. 

101st.  To  the  one  liundred  and  first  Interrogatory  he  saith — I  understand 
those  words  as  both  binding  submission  to  such  judgments  as  are  agreeable  to 
the  word  of  God,  and  enforcing  them. 

102d.  To  the  one  liundred  and  second  Interrogatory  he  saith — It  met  on  the 
fourth  Wednesday  of  May,  1S41,  at  Washington,  Pennsylvania,  and  at  Xenia, 
Ohio,  on  the  fourth  Wednesday,  May,   1842. 

103d.  To  the  one  hundred  and  third  Interrogatory  he  saith — No. 

104th.  To  the  one  hundred  and  fourth  Interrogatory  he  saith — No. 

105th.  To  the  one  hundred  and  fifth  Interrogatory  he  saith — I  understand 
there  is,  and  the  names  of  the  ministerial  members,  so  far  as  I  know  them, 
have  been  already  mentioned  in  answer  to  the  seventy-eighth  interrogatory. 

106th.  To  the  one  hundred  and  sixth  Interrogatory  he  saith — All  of  them, 
so  far  as  I  know,  were  in  communion  with  the  Associate  Church,  but  they 
were  all  suspended  or  deposed,  and  are  not  now  recognized  as  having  any 
right  to  exercise  the  office  of  the  ministry  in  the  Associate  Church. 

107lh.  To  the  one  hundred  and  seventh  Interrogatory  he  saith — The  con- 
scientious belief  of  suspended  or  deposed  ministers  does  not  give  them  any 
right  before  the  church  to  exercise  their  ministry,  nor  does  their  belief  affect 
the  justice  of  their  sentence  before  God. 

108th.  To  the  one  hundred  and  eighth  Interrogatory  he  saith — They  have 
not  except  in  the  respect  already  mentioned  in  answer  to  the  eighty-third  In- 
terrogatory. 

109th.  To  the  one  hundred  and   ninth  Interrogatory  he  saith — They  have. 

110th.  To  the  one  hundred  and  tenth  Interrogatory  he  saith — The  state- 
ment made  by  Andrew  Stark  as  referred  to  in  this  interrogatory  is  not  true, 
but  at  a  certain  time  when  a  seism  took  place  in  the  Presbytery  of  Albany,  the 
Synod  determined  that  the  part  of  it,  of  which  Messrs.  Martin  and  Campbell 
were  members,  was  the  Presbytery  of  Albany,  and  that  their  proceedings' 
were  valid. 

Lastly.  To  the  last  Interrogatory  he  saith — I  know  of  nothing  further. 


To  the  cross-Interrogatories. 

1st.  In  answer  to  the  first  cross-Interrogatory  he  saith — I  know  it  to  be  cor- 
rectly stated  from  the  narrative  prefixed  to  the  declaration  and  testimony  of 
the  Associate  Church,  (Philad.  Ed.  1839,)  and  from  other  books  not  published 
by  the  Associate  Church,  such  as  McKerrow's  history  of  the  Secession  Church, 
pages  253  and  259.  From  these  authorities  I  am  assured  of  the  correctness 
of  the  statement  in  question.  Others,  who  are  members  of  the  Associate 
Church,  or  claim  to  be  such,  may  differ  in  opinion  with  me,  but  my  mind  is 
no  wise  disturbed  by  what  is  or  may  be  alleged  to  the  contrary  by  others. 
As  to  members,  now  in  full  communion  with  us,  differing  with  me  in  opinion, 
I  know  of  none  such. 

2d.  To  the  second  cross-Interrogatory  he  saith — The  supreme  rule  in  the 
Associate  Church  is  the  word  of  God.  The  Westminster  confession  of  faith, 
as  it  is  received  by  the  Associate  Church,  declaration  and  testimony  of  the  said 
church  and  book  of  discipline  and  government,  enacted  in  1817,  are  subor- 
dinate standards  in  the  strict  sense  of  the  term.  To  name  pages,  chapters, 
sections  and  so  on,  in  these  standards  would  be  unnecessary,  as  every  part  of 
them  relates  more  or  less  directly  to  the  government  and  discipline,  faith  and 
practice  of  the  Associate  Church.     Perdivan's  collections  and  the  books  of  dis- 


279 

cipline  in  the  other  Presbyterian  Churches  are,  had,  in  great  regard,  in  deter- 
mining cases  where  our  own  is  deficient  on  account  of  its  brevity.  My  answer 
is  matter  of  fixed  belief,  and,  as  to  diflerence  in  opinion,  I  refer  to  my  answer 
to  first  cross-interrogatory. 

3d.  To  the  third  cross-Interrogatory  he  saith — I  heard  the  minutes  referred 
to  read  in  Synod,  and  have  since  seen  an  attested  copy  of  them,  but  have  nev- 
er seen  the  original,  nor  committed  them  to  memory;  that  attested  copy  which 
was  handed  to  me  by  Dr.  Thomas  Beveridge  is  annexed  to  these  depositions 
and  marked  A.  I  cannot  swear  anything  further  as  to  the  commencement  and 
conclusion  of  the  said  minutes,  other  than  what  appears  on  their  face.  The 
copy  of  the  said  minutes  were  handed  to  me  by  Dr.  Beveridge,  a  week  or  two 
before  this  examination  at  Cannonsburgh. 

4th.  To  the  fourth  cross-Interrogatory  he  saith — I  refer  to  Perdivan's  Col- 
lections, Book  4,  title  3d,  section  ISth. 

5th.  To  the  fifth  cross-Interrogatory  he  saith — I  refer  to  the  Book  of  Disci- 
pline of  Associate  Church,  enacted  1817,  art.  12,  p.  60.  My  answer  is  a  fixed 
belief,  and  as  to  opinions,  I  refer  to  my  answer  to  the  first    cross-interrogatory, 

6th.  To  the  sixth  cross-Interrogatory  he  saith — I  refer  to  the  Book,  art.  and 
page  quoted  in  my  last  answer.  My  answer  is  a  matter  of  fixed  belief,  and  I 
know  the  matter  to  be  as  stated,  not  only  from  the  authorities  cited,  but  from 
common  sense. 

7th.  To  the  seventh  cross-Interrogatory  he  saith — As  I  have  already  said  in 
answer  to  the  fifteenth  direct  interrogatory.  The  case  of  Dr.  Bullions  did  not 
come  up  by  protest  and  appeal,  and  I  have  no  recollection  of  the  statements 
referred  to  in  the  cross-interrogatory,  and  therefore  can  state  nothing  concern- 
ing it. 

Sth.  To  the  eighth  cross-Interrogatory  he  saith — I  know  the  proceedings  of 
the  Presbytery  of  Cambridge  to  be  legal  from  having  heard  them  read  in  Sy- 
nod, and  from  the  attested  copy  already  referred  to.  My  answer  is  a  matter 
of  fixed  belief,  and  as  to  difieiences  in  opinion,  I  refer  to  my  answer  to  the 
first  cross-interrogatory. 

9th.  To  the  ninth  cross-Interrogatory  he  saith— I  refer  to  Perdivan,  Book 
4th,  title  5th,  sec.  9  ;  Book  of  Discipline  of  Associate  Eeformed  Church, 
Book  II,  chap.  8,  sec.  3 ;  if  authorities  be  wanted  in  a  matter  of  such  plain 
common  sense.  It  is  an  inherent  right  in  every  court  to  judge  of  the  compe- 
tency of  its  own  members,  and  the  court  itself  may  therefore  challenge  any 
member  or  members  in  a  particular  case.  It  is  in  accordance,  I  apprehend, 
with  the  discipline  of  the  Associate  Church,  in  a  case  like  that  of  Dr.  Bullions, 
to  exclude  a  member  on  mere  motion,  the  objection  to  him  being  self-evident 
to  the  court.  If  the  member  objected  to  desires  to  explain  or  be  heard,  the 
court  will  always  hear  him. 

10th.  To  the  tenth  cross-Interrogatory  he  saith — Because  they  were  toa 
nearly  related  to  Dr.  Bullions  ;  Mr.  Goodwillie  being  his  brother-in-  law,  and 
Mr.  Pringle  his  son-in-law,  both  were  excluded  for  relationship  ;  and  for  au- 
thorities I  refer  to  my  preceding  answer. 

11th.  To  the  eleventh  cross-Interrogatory  he  saith — I  refer  to  the  authorities 
before  cited  by  me  in  my  previous  answers.  The  general  rules  on  these  sub- 
jects are  laid  down  in  Perdivan,  in  the  Associate  Church  book  of  discipline^ 
and  in  the  books  of  other  Churches.  The  application  of  these  rules  to  the 
particular  cases  arising,  is  of  necessity  the  business  and  duty  of  the  courts  un- 
der Avhich  the  cases  come  for  decision.  My  answer  is  a  matter  of  fixed  be- 
lief, and  as  to  opinions,  I  refer  to  my  answer  to  the  first  interrogatory,  (cross.) 
12th,  To  the  twelfth  cross-Interrogatory  he  saith — They  are  bound  to  sub- 


280 

mit  according  (u  the  principles  stated  in  my  answer  to  the  72nd  interrogator}-. 
I  have  no  authorities  to  cite. 

loth.  To  the  tliirteenth  cross-Interrogatory  he  saith — In  answer  I  refer  to 
my  answer  to  the  72  interrogatory  and  have  no  authorities  to  cite.  I  refer  to 
Pcrdivan  and  the  hooks  of  discipline,  and  my  answer  to  11th,  cross-interrog- 
atory. 

14lh.  To  the  fourteenth  cross-Interrogatory  he  saith — The  evidence  was  the 
evidence  of  the  senses  of  tlie  Presbytery.  That  it  was  agreeable  to  the  stand- 
ards of  the  Associate  Church,  for  the  Presbytery  in  the  case  of  Dr.  Bullions,, 
to  require  him  to  submit  to  a  rebuke,  and  afterwards  for  his  non-submission  to 
suspend  him  from  the  exercise  of  his  ofRce  is  little  if  anything  short  of  a  self- 
evident  truth,  and  as  plain  that  his  Congregation  should  have  submitted  also. 
As  to  ditierences  in  opinion  1  refer  to  my  answer  to  the  first  cross -interrogatory. 
Mr.  Slark  may  profess  to  differ  in  opinion  with  me.  Although  I  do  not  claim 
infallibility,  it  is  my  firm  belief  that  in  this  matter  I  am  not  mistaken. 

15th.  To  the  fifteenth  cross-interrogatory  he  saith — I  have  no  further  au- 
thorities to  cite  than  those  heretofore  cjted  in  my  answer  as  to  my  opinion  and 
difTerences  in  opinion.     I  refer  to  my  answer  to  the  first  cross-interrogatory. 

16th.  To  the  sixteenth  cross-Interrogatory  he  saith — I  know  and  know  only 
from  the  history  of  the  individuals  referred  to  and  their  times.  I  have  no 
reason  to  doubt  the  history,  and  my  answer  is  based  upon  it. 

17th.  To  the  seventeenth  cross-Interrogatory  he  saith — Associate  Ch.  book 
Dis,  part  3,  Art.  8,  Sec.  4th,  page  56. 

19th.  To  the  nineteenth  cross-Interrogatory  he  saith — In  support  of  my  an- 
swer to  the  several  direct  interrogatories  here  specified,  I  refer  as  before  to  the 
standards  of  the  Associate  Church.  I  believe  my  answers  are  agreeable,  not 
only  to  those  standards  but  to  right  reason,  as  to  my  opinion  and  differences  of 
opinion,  I  refer  to  my  answer  to  the  first  cross-interrogatory,  and  to  the  four- 
teenth cross-interrogatory. 

20th.  To  the  twentieth  cross-interrogatory  he  saith — It  belongs-- not  to  the 
office  of  a  deacon  to  preach  the  word,  or  dispense  the  sacrament,  but  to  take 
special  care  in  distributing  to  the  necessities  of  the  poor.  See  Acts  of  the 
Apostles  vi.  1  to  4  inclusive.  Form  Pres.  Ch.  govern.  West.  Ass.  I  have  no 
further  authorities  to  quote. 

2Jst.  To  the  twenty-first  cross-Interrogatory  he  says — A  minister  cannot  be 
imposed  on  a  Congregation  as  a  fixed  pastor  without  their  consent.  There  are 
many  possible  cases  relative  to  the  erection  of  a  Church  edifice  in  which  the 
Presbytery  or  Synod  may  justly  interfere,  for  example  about  the  site  in  for- 
bidding the  erection  of  it  so  near  to  the  Church  edifice  of  a  Congregation  be- 
longing to  the  same  body,  as  would  injure  them  in  their  rights,  as  to  its  fash- 
ion by  placing  the  cross  upon  it.  In  short  they  may  interfere  in  any  thing 
about  it,  that  may  come  regularly  before  them,  for  judgment  and  decision. 

The  Congregation,  as  a  general  rule,  erect  their  church  edifices,  and  they 
are  under  their  control.  The  Congregation,  Presbytery  and  Synod  have  each 
in  difl^erent  respects,  control  over  the  buildings.  According  to  the  principles  of 
the  Associate  Church,  as  I  have  ever  understood  them,  we  ought  to  yield  obe- 
dience to  the  civil  magistrate,  in  all  his  lawful  commands,  and  if  in  anything 
he  enjoins  what  is  contrary  to  a  law  of  God,  we  should  obey  God  rather  than 
man.  The  authorities  to  which  I  refpr  are  the  standards  of  our  Church,  par- 
ticularly the  Westminster  confession  and  testimony. 

22d.  To  the  twenty-second  cross-Interrogatory  he  saith — The  liability  of 
church  courts  to  err  imposes  on  us  the  necessity  of  trying  their  decisions  by 
the  word  of  God :  and  if  they  do  not  appear  to  be  inconsistent  with  that  rule, 


281 

"we  are  "bound  to  submit  to  them.  Obey  them  that  have  the  rule  over  you  and 
submit  yourselves  :  Heb.  13.  17.  As  to  my  errors  I  refer  to  my  answer  to  four- 
teenth cross-interrogatory. 

23d.  To  the  twenty-third  cross-Interrogatory  he  saith — I  have  come  to  the 
knowledge  of  the  facts  referred  to  in  both  these  direct  interroj^ratories  by  read- 
ing. In  regard  to  the  seventy-sixth  interrogatory  I  rely  on  Gibb's  display  of 
the  secession  testimony  and  iVJcKerrovv's  Flistory  of  the  Secession  Church,  and 
in  regard  to  the  seventy-seventh,  the  life  of  Marshal  by  McCullock. 

24th.  To  the  twenty-fourth  cross- Interrogatory  he  saith — As  to  that  work  I 
have  already  said  I  was  not  a  subscriber  to  it,  and  know  little  or  nothing  about 
it,  and  have  no  copy  to  produce.  I  know  nothing  of  Chancey  Webster's  au« 
thorship  as  referred  to.  He  was  at  one  time  the  editor  of  the  Keligious  Moni- 
tor, but  the  precise  time  I  do  not  recollect.  Said  Web«ter  is  a  member  of  our 
church  in  good  standing.  As  to  his  differing  in  opinion  with  me  on  the  duty 
of  submission  I  know  nothing.  As  to  a  member  of  church  submitting  to  a 
decision  right  or  wrong  I  refer  to  my  answer  to  the  r2th  cross  interrogatoy. 
As  to  Mr.  "Webster  or  others  differing  with  me  I  can  say  nothing.  I  have  no 
further  authorities  to  cite. 

25th.  To  the  twenty-fifth  cross-Interrogatory  he  saith — I  know  it  in  no  oth- 
er way  than  that  I  considered  them  in  man}^  particulars  manifest  departures 
from  the  standards  of  our  church  ;  and  this  with  me  is  not  matter  of  opinion, 
hut  firm  belief.  I  have  no  further  authorities  to  cite.  It  is  possible  the  de- 
fendants claim  to  differ  with  me  in  opinion.  As  to  opinions  and  differences  in 
opinion  and  mistakes,  I  refer  to  the  answer  to  the  first  and  fourteenth  cross- 
interrogatories, 

26th.  To  the  twenty-sixth  cross-Interrogatory  he  saith — As  I  have  said  be- 
fore, the  words  alluded  to  both  limit  and  enforce,  and  they  are  certainly  con- 
sidered by  every  good  member  of  the  church  as  not  immaterial  and  of  no 
force  and  effect.     I  have  no  further  references  or  authorities  to  cite. 

27th.  To  the  twenty-seventh  cross-Interrogatory  he  saith — So  far  as  I  re- 
collect I  did  vote  with  the  majority  on  all  questions  against  Dr.  Bullions.  I 
did  not  vote  against  the  Presbytery  of  Vermont  on  all  questions,  and  my  name 
■will  be  found  recorded  among  the  ayes  and  noes  on  the  minutes  of  Synod  of 
1839. 

To  the  last  cross-Interrogatory  he  saith — I  know  nothing  more  that  would 
be  of  any  advantage  to  Defendants.  JAMES  RAMSEY. 

Examination   taken,  reduced  to   writing  and  sworn,  to  28th  June  and  5th 

July,  1843,  before  us.  Jno.    L.  Gow,  )  ^        .    . 

•"  r       ^nr  }  Commissioners. 

Jas.  Watson.    ) 

Adjourned  to  meet  at  the  same  place  on  the  sixth  day  of  July  inst.,  and  now, 
to  wit :  the  sixth  day  of  July,  Dr.  James  Martin,  of  Cannonsburgh,  in  the 
County  of  Washington,  and  State  of  Pennsylvania,  D.  D.,  being  duly  and 
publicly  sworn  and  examined  oh  the  part  of  the  Plaintiff,  doth  depose  and  say 
as  follows  : 

1st.  To  the  first  Interrogatory  he  saith — My  name  is  James  Martin,  and  am 
Professor  of  Theology  in  the  Theological  Seminary  of  the  Associate  Church, 
and  I  reside  at  Cannonsburgh  in  the  State  of  Pennsylvania. 

2d.  To  the  second  Interrogatory  he  saith — I  know  the  most  of  the  Com- 
plainants and  Defendants,  named  in  the  title  to  the  interrogatories,  and  hav» 
known  many  of  them  for  more  than  twenty  years. 

8d.  To  the  third  Interrogatory  he  saith — I  am  now,  and  have  been  for  about 
twenty  years. 

4th.  To  the  fourth  Interrogatory  he  saith — I  profess  to  be  so  acquainted. 
36 


282 

5th.  To  the  fifth  Interrogatory  lie  saith — It  is. 

6th,  To  the  sixth  Interrogatory  he  saith — To  both  branches  of  the  interro- 
gatory I  answer  yes. 

7th.  To  the  seventh  Interrogatory  he  saith — To  each  part  of  this  interro- 
gatory I  answer  yes. 

Sth.  To  the  eighth  Interrogatory  he  saith — I  think  they  are. 
9th.  To  the  ninth  Interrogatory  he  saith — To  both  branches  of  the  Interro- 
gatory I  answer  yes. 

lOth.  To  the  tenth  Interrogatory  he  saith — I  have  read  the  minutes  alluded 
to,  and  think  that  I  heard  them  read  in  Synod  at  the  time  referred  to. 

11th.  To  the  eleventh  Interrogatory  he  saith — When  a  contempt  or  other 
offence  is  committed  in  the  presence  of  a  court,  the  court  may  proceed  upon  its 
own  knowledge  to  inflict  the  necessary  punishment.  Perdivan,  13,  4,  title  3d, 
sec.  IS. 

12th.  To  the  tAA'elfth  Interrogatory  he  saith — It  does  not. 
13th.  To  the  thirteenth  Interrogatory  he  saith — In  an  inferior  court  where  a 
protest  with  an  appeal  is  offered  against  a  decision,  the  court  can  either  ad- 
mit or  reject  it  ;  if  admitted,  further  proceedings  in  the  case  are  stayed,  but 
if  rejected  the  court  proceeds,  as  if  no  protest  had  been  offered.  Book  of 
Discipline,  pages  60  and  61.     Perdivan,  Book  iv.  title  5,  sec.  11. 

14th.  To  the  fourteenth  Interrogatory  he  saith — -A  protest  against  a  defini- 
tive sentence  as  well  as  against  an  interlocatory  decision  may  be  rejected  and 
the  sentence  executed  whenever  the  court  believes  that  the  edification  of  the 
church  will  be  most  promoted  by  such  a  course.  If  the  offender  persists  in  a 
course  of  contumacy  and  impenitence,  the  highest  censures  of  the  church  may 
be  inflicied  on  him.     Book,  Disc.  p.  61,  Man.  18  h  chap. 

15  h.  To  the  fif  een  h  In'erroga  ory  he  sai  h — I  ihink  it  is  as  admined  by 
all  parlies  hai  wha'ever  pro'esis  and  appeals  Dr.  Bullions  had  taken  in  Pres- 
byierv,  he  had  fallen  from  ihem  before  his  case  came  up  in  another  shape  in 
Synod. 

16th.  To  the  sixteenth  Interrogatory  he  saith — Dr.  Bullions  brought  his 
cause  before  Synod,  by  memorial  and  complaint,  but  as  he  had  given  no  pre- 
vious notice  to  the  Presbytery  of  his  design,  their  consent  was  judged  neces- 
sary in  order  to  an  investigation  of  the  case.  This  consent  was  given.  Min- 
utes of  Synod,  of  1S38,  p.  26. 

17th.  To  the  seventeenth  Interrogatory  he  saith — I  answer  yes.  Book  of 
Dis.  p.  p.  60  and  61.     Perdivan  Book  iv.  title  4,  Sec.  12. 

18th.  To  the  eighteenth  Interrogatory  he  saith — I  answer  both  parts  of  the 
interrogatory  in  the  affirmative.  Perdivan  B.  iv.  title  5,  Sec.  9,  B.  iv.  title  iii. 
sec.  12. 

19th.  To  the  nineteenth  Interrogatory  he  saith— I  see  no  impropriety  in  the 
proceedure  here  alluded  to. 

20th.  To  the  twentieth  Interrogatory  he  saith— From  the  sentence  of  ex- 
clusion referred  to,  there  were  no  appeals  brought  before  the  Synod. 

21st.  To  the  twenty-first  Interrogatory  he  saith — The  general  rule  is  to  ex- 
clude those  who  have  prejudged  a  cause. 

22nd.  To  the  twenty-second  Interrogatory  he  saith — I  answer  in  the  nega- 
tive. 

23rd.  To  the  twenty-third  Interrogatory  he  saith — The  charges  which  Dr. 
Bullions  made  against  his  co-Presbyters  at  the  time  referred  to,  was  certainly 
slanderous,  and  making  a  charge  at  the  time,  and  in  the  manner  he  did,  and 
his  subsequent  conduct  in  relation  to  it  was  all  highly  contemptuous  and  de- 
serving of  censure. 


283 

24th.  To  the  tA^nty-fourth  Interrogatory  he  saith — The  charge  in  question 
could  not  disqualify  the  members  against  whom  it  was  brought,  from  acting  as 
members  of  the  court,  even  after  they  were  named  on  account  of  its  vague- 
ness, the  unwillingness  of  the  accused  to  furnish  the  means  of  investigating  it. 

25th.  To  the  twenty-fifth  Interrogatory  he  saith— The  paper  containing  the 
declinature,  I  have  not  read,  but  from  the  account  given  of  its  contents  in  the 
minutes  of  the  Presbytery,  I  have  no  doubt  it  contained  what  is  called  an  un- 
warrantable declinature  ;  according  to  the  minutes.  Dr.  Bullions  in  said  paper 
denied  the  right  constitution  of  the  Presbytery^  and  declared  its  authority  to 
be  assumed,  and  on  those  grounds  refused  submission  to  its  decisions.  This 
constitutes  an  unwarrantable  declinature,  according  to  Perdivan,  book  iv.  title 
5,  sec.  9v 

26lh»  To  the  twenty-sixth  Interrogatory  he  saith — I  answer  yes.  Perdivan 
Book  iv.  title  5,  sec.  9. 

27th.  To  the  twenty-sevunth  Interrogatory  he  saith — As  Dr.  Bullions  pros- 
ecuted no  appeals  before  Synod^  from  the  decision  of  his  Presbytery,  neither 
in  suspending  or  deposing  him,  he  and  his  Congregation  were  bound  to  sub- 
mit to  those  decisions.     Formula  quest.  6th,  Book  Dis.  p.  p.  60,  61. 

2Sth>,  To  the  twenty-eighth  Interrogatory  he  saith — I  answer  yes.  Book 
Dis.  p.  12,  Test  p.  126. 

29th.  To  the  twenty-ninth  Interrogatory  he  saith — I  answer  yes,  Perdivan, 
B.  iv.  title  4,  sec.  12. 

SOth.  To  the  thirtieth  Interrogatory  he  saith — Although  it  maybe  expedient 
in  most  cases,  yet  it  is  not  essentially  requisite  m  all  cases,  that  three  citations 
be  served  on  the  accused,  especially  if  he  peremptorily  notifies  the  court  that 
he  will  not  attend;  the  length  of  time  intervening  between  the  citations  maybe 
Varied  according  to  circumstances. 

31st.  To  the  thirty-first  Interrogatory  he  saith — He  and  the  congregation 
Were  bound  to  submit  or  withdraw  from  their  professed  subjection  to  the  au- 
thority of  the  church  and  its  communion. 

32d.  To  the  thirty-second  Interrogatory  he  saith — It  is  not  true,  as  the  Pres- 
bytery acted  on  their  own  senses. 

33d»  To  the  thirty-third  Interrogatory  he  saith — It  is  not  true.  Test.  p.  126. 
Form,  quest  6,  William's  defence,  p.  p.  397,  39S. 

34th.  To  the  thirty-fourth  Interrogatory  he  saith — I  know  of  no  principle  in 
the  Associate  Church  which  could  justify  Dr.  Bullions  in  rebelling  against  the 
authority  of  the  church  and  thus  breaking  his  ordination  vows.  The  Synod 
decided  in  1838  that  a  protest  against  a  decit-ion  of  Synod  did  not  justify  dis- 
obedience to  it.     Min.  Sv.  1838,  page  36. 

3f5th.  To  the  thirty-fifth  Interrogatory  he  saith — A  protest  taken  against  a 
decision  of  the  Synod  denotes  a  strong  and  marked  disapprobation  on  the  part 
of  the  protestor  against  such  decision  ;  but  at  the  same  time  contemplates  his 
passive  acquiescence  in  it,  and  does  by  no  means  warrant  him  to  resist  it.  The 
Associate  Church  holds  no  peculiar  views  that  I  know  of  on  the  subject  of  pro- 
tests.    Min.  Sy.   1838,  p.  36. 

36th.  To  the  thirty-sixth  Interrogatory  he  saith — In  the  protest  alluded  to 
Dr.  Bullions  did  decline  submission  to  the  authority  of  the  Associate  Synod, 
and  did  thereby  virtually  declare  his  abandonment  of  the  Associate  Church, 
as  no  person  can  be  regarded  as  a  member  of  said  church  who  refuses  sub- 
mission to  its  supreme  judicatory. 

37th.  To  the  thirty-seventy  Interrogatory  he  saith — The  case  of  Dr.  Bul- 
lions and  that  of  the  seceders  supposed  to  be  alluded  to,  are  essentially  differ- 
ent. 


i>S4 

3Slh.  To  the  thirty-eighth  Interrogatory  he  sailli — I  misvver  no. 
39th.   To  the  thirty-ninth    interrogatory  he   saith — 1  answer  no,  not   to  my 
knoAvledge. 

40th.  To  the  fortieth  Interrogatory  he  saith — I  am  sure  the  Synod  did  not 
nothing  to  warrant  any  such  statement. 

41st.  To  the  forty-first  Interrogatory  he  saith — It  was  not. 
42d.  To  the  forty-second  Interrogatory  he  saith — It  was. 
43d.  To  the  forty-third  Interrogatory  he  saith — It  was,  and  the  offence  was 
insubordination. 

44th.  To  the  forty-fourth  Interrogatory  he  saith — To  the  former  part  of  the- 
interrogatory,  I  answer,  yes;,  and  to  the  latter,  I  answer,  that  the  congregation 
have  made  themselves  transgressors  with  him  in  continuing  to  employ  him  as 
their  pastor. 

45th.  To  the  forty-fifth  Interrogatory  he  saith — I  unhesitatingly  answer  yes 
to  all  the  several  parts  of  this  interrogatory. 

46th.  To  the  forty-sixth  Interrogatory  he  saith — They  are  not  in  commu- 
nion with  the  Associate  Church,  nor  can  they  be  while  pursuing  their  present 
course  in  rebellion. 

47th.  To  the  forty-seventh  Interrogatory  he  saith — It  gave  him  no  right  or 
privileges  in  the  Church,  and  the  Synod  so  decided  at  the  time.  Min.  Synod 
1838,  page  30. 

48th.  To  the  forth-eighth  Interrogatory  he  saith — They  had  no  standing  in 
the  Church  after  their  deposition. 

49th.  To  the  forty-ninth  Interrogatory  he  saith — Mr.  Erskine  was  judged 
worthy  of  a  rebuke  for  publicly  bearing  testimony  against  certain  evils  in  the 
Church,  as  he  was  bound  to  do;,  but  Dr.  Bullions  was  judged  worthy  of  a  re- 
buke for  bringing  a  slanderous  charge  against  his  brethren,  and  refusing  to 
furnish  the  means  of  investigating  it,  connected  also  with  a  manifest  contempt 
of  court.  Mr.  Erskine  was  finally  deposed  from  office,  for  having  seceded 
from  the  Church,  but  Dr.  Bullions  after  being  deposed  for  sundry  breaches  of 
his  ordination  vows,-still  claimed  to  be  regarded  as  a  minister  in  good  standing 
in  the  Church  which  deposed  him.  There  are  other  differences  of  a  similar 
nature,  between  these  two-  cases. 

53d.  To  the  fifty-third  Interrogatory  he  saith — It  is  the  right  and  duty  of 
Synod  to  appoint  commissioners  in  such  cases,  and  for  such  purposes.  B.  of 
Dis.  page  12th. 

54th.  To  the  fifty-fourth  Interrogatory  he  saith — It  is  the  duty  of  such  Con- 
gregation and  Trustees  to  receive  such  commissioners,  open  to  them  the  doors 
of  their  Churches,  and  afford  them  the  facilities  spoken  of. 
62d.  To  the  sixty-second  Interrogatory  he  saith — It  was. 
63d.  To  the  sixty-third  Interrogatory  he  saith — It  authorized   the  elders  to 
perform  the  duty  of  a  session,  towards  the  congregation. 

64th.  To  the  sixty-fourth  Interrogatory  he  saith — This  session  were  author- 
ized to  do  whatsoever  any  lawful  session  might  do,  and  had  authority  to  call 
before  them  any  delinquents  or  refactory  members,  and  deal  with  them  as  the 
books  of  discipline  direct. 

66th.  To  the  sixty-sixth  Interrogatory  he  saith — They  ought  to  be  cut  off 
from  the  privileges  of  the  Church,  for  according  to  Perdivan,  ministers  who 
hold  ministerial  communion  with  deposed  ministers,  ought  to  be  themielves 
deposed.     Book  iv.  title  4,  sec.  17. 

67th.  To  the  sixty-seventh  Interrogatory  he  saith — None  but  members  in- 
full  communion.     B.  Dis.  Art.  10th,  P.  1. 

68th.  To  the  sixty-eighth  Interrogatory  he  saith — When  Trustees  are  ap- 


285 

pointpd  they  act  in  part  in  the  room  of  Deacons,  and  ought  to  be  members  of 
the  Church  in  full  communion.  The  rule  is  uniform  ihrougliout  the  Church 
in  all  the  States.     Min  Synod  1840,  p.  23. 

69th.  To  the  sixty-ninth  Interrogatory  he  saith — The  first  and  second  branch- 
es of  the  Interrogatory,  I  answer  in  the  affirmative:  to  the  latter  I  answer  the- 
Trustees,  for  the  morality  of  their  official  acts,  are  accountable  to  the  session* 
70th.  To  the  seventieth  Interrogatory  he  saith — I  answer  yes. 
71st.  To  the  seventy-first  Interrogatory  he  saith — To    the  former  branch  o£ 
the  interrogatory  I  answer  yes,  to  the  latter  no. 

72nd.  To  the  seventy-second  Interrogatory  he  saith — Church  courts  are  fal- 
lible, and  no  less  so  are  those  who  condemn  them  ;  but  while  the  bible  com- 
mands us  to  submit  to  the  decisions  of  fallible  courts,  it  no  w^here  commands  ua. 
to  submit  io  the  opinions  of  individuals  who  may  condemn  ihose  courts.  The 
only  lawful  judges  whom  Christ  hath  appointed  to  determine  controversies  in 
the  church  are  the  church  judicatories  themselves.  From  the  highest  of  these 
there  can  be  no  appeal  lo  any  other  earthly  tribunal. 

73d.  To  the  seveny-ihird  In  errogaiory  he  sai:h — Certainly,  because  as  a 
church  we  have  borne  a  public  testimony  against  the  basis  upon  which  the 
united  Secession  Church  is  founded. 

74h.  To  the  seventy-fourth  Interrogatory  he  saith. — It  is  not  true. 
75th.  To  the  seventy-fifth  Interrogatory  he  saith — Through  the  representa- 
tions of  Mr.  Stark  and  his  friends,  the  Synod  in  1S37,  was  influenced  to  make 
a  decision  against  which  Messrs.  Anderson,  Gordon  and  others  protested,  and. 
in  their  reasoning  to  enforce  their  protest  the  following  year  they  charac;eriz- 
ed  their  decision,  protestpd  against  as  asserting  an  untruth  misrepresenting  a 
certain  vote,  &c.  Mr.  Stark  therefore  in  his  testimony,  does  not  represent  the 
matter  fairly.     Min.   Sy.  1838,  p.  33. 

76th.  To  the  seventy-sixth  Interrogatory  he  saith — It  is  not  true,  for  they 
were  expelled  from  their  churches  by  civic  authority.  Narr-  prefixed  to  test. 
p.  29. 

77th.  To  the  seventy-seventh  Interrogatory  he  saith — It  is  not  true.  The 
chief  reason  why  Mr.  Marshal  lost  his  church  was  the  fact  of  his  alleged  de- 
position, and  not  the  fact  of  a  majority  of  the  congregation  being  against  him. 
For  it  was  proved  in  the  civil  court  that  a  majority  of  the  congregation  was  on 
his  side ;  no  attempt  was  made  to  take  Mr.  Clarkson's  church  from  him. 
Vind.  Ass.  Presby.  p.  76. 

78th.  To  the  seventy-eight  Interrogatory  he  saith — They  have,  and  their 
names  are  A.  Stark,  H.  Blair,  A.  Bullions,  E.  Bullions,  A.  White,  D.  Stalker^ 
T.  Goodwillie  and  N.  Pringle. 

79th.  To  the  seventy-ninth  Interrogatory  he  saith — I  am  somewhat  acquaint* 
ed  with  the  works  spoken  of,  and  believe  that  some  of  the  principles  contend- 
ed for  in  said  work  involve  a  departure  from  the  doctrines,  faith  and  practice 
of  the  Associate  Church,  particularly  on  the  subject  of  protest  and  sulmission 
to  Church  Courts. 

80th.  To  the  eightieth  Interrogatory  he  saith — It  was  while  in  existence. 
81st.  To  the  eighty-first  interrogatory  he  saith — I  answer  yes. 
82d.  To  the    eighty-second   Interrogatory   he  saith — Said   answers  are  in 
many  respects  inconsistent   with   the   doctrines,    government   discipline   and 
practice  of  the  Associate  Church,  particularly  in  those   things  wherein  they 
contradict  the  Bill  of  Complaint. 

83d.  To  the  eighty-third  Interrogatory  he  saith — To  both  branches  of  th» 
interrogatory  I  answer  no,  unless  the  Synod's  action  on  the  subject  of  slavery 
and  the  publication  of  the  forms  of  marriage  be  so  considered. 


286 

S4th.  To  the  eighty- fourth  Interrogatory  he  saith — I  answer  yes.  Book  dis. 
page  12,  con.  faith,  chap.  31,  sec.  3. 

85th.  To  the  eighty-fifth  Interrogatory  he  saith — I  have  attended  all  the 
annual  meetings  of  Synod  for  the  last  seventeen  years,  with  the  exception  of 
two  or  three,  and  have  no  recollection  of  any  snch  proceedure  on  the  part  of 
Synod,  nor  do  I  believe  that  such  a  case  as  Mr.  Stark  refers  to  ever  had  exis- 
tence. 

86th.  To  the  eighty-sixth  Interrogatory  he  saith — The  case  of  the  Presby- 
tery of  Vermont  was  brcuglit  before  Synod  by  a  complaint  from  the  Presbyte- 
ry of  Cambridge,  and  to  the  remaining  parts  of  the  interrogatory>  I  answer  in 
the  affirmative.     Min.   Sy.  1839. 

87th.  To  the  eighty-seventh  Interrogatory  he  saith — To  both  parts  of  the  in- 
terrogatory I  answer  yes.     Min.  Sy.  1839. 

83th.  To  the  eighty-eighth  Interrogatory  he  saith — Yes,  since  the  members 
of  the  Presbytery  of  Cambridge  were  not  parties  in  the  cause. 

8'^th.  To  the  eighty-ninth  Interrogatory  he  saith^I  answer  no,  and  refer  to 
the  ninutes  of  Synod  in  the  case  1840,  page  24,  33. 

90th.  To  the  ninetieth  Interrogatory  he  saith — They  were  not. 
91st    To  the  ninety-first  Interrogatory  he  saith — I  answer  in  the  affirmative. 
65d.  To  the  ninety-second  Interrogatory  he  saith — To  the  former  part  of  the 
interrogator}'  I  answer,  no  ;  and  to  the  latter  part,  yes. 

93d.  To  the  ninety-third  Interrogatory  he  saith — Inasmuch  as  the  Synod  re- 
ferred Dr.  Bullions  to  the  Presbytery  of  Cambridge,  whether  he  was  excom- 
municated or  not,  the  Presbytery  of  Vermont  had  nothing  to  do  with  him — 
they  :ould  not  legally  exercise  any  jurisdiction  in  the  case. 

94th.  To  the  ninety-fourth  Interrogatory  he  saith — Not  according  to  my  j  udg- 
ment. 

95ti.  To  the  ninety-fifth  Interrogatory  he  saith — David  Bullions  was  regu- 
larly licensed  by  order  of  the  Associate  Synod  in  the  summer  of  1841,  and 
Was  appointed  to  supply  in  the  Presbyteries  of  Ohio,  Miami,  Indiana,  Illinois, 
also  in  the  state  of  Tennessee,  and  was  allowed  a  month  or  two  to  supply 
where  he  pleased. 

96th.  To  the  ninety-sixth  Interrogatory  he  saith — Yes. 
97th.  To  the  ninety-seventh  Interrogatory  he  saith  — I  have. 
98th.  To  the  ninety-eighth  Interrogatory  he  saith — To  both  parts  of  the  in- 
terrogatory I  answer  yes. 

99th.  To  the  ninety-ninth  Interrogatory  he  saith — I  answer  both  parts  of  the 
interrogatory  in  the  negative. 

100th.  To  the  onehundredlhlnterrogatory  he  saith — When  it  coincides  with 
our  own  book  it  is  regarded  as  good  collateral  authority,  and  on  points  where 
our  own  book  is  silent,  it  is  regarded  by  us  as  good  authority. 

lOlst.  To  the  one  hundred  and  first  Interrogatory  he  saith — I  regard  that 
claim  as  inteuded  to  enforce  and  not  to  limit  the  submission  promised. 

102d.  To  the  one  hundred  and  second  Interrogatory  he  saith — In  1841,  Sy- 
nod met  in  Washington,  Pennsylvania;  in  1842,  in  Xenia,  Ohio;  the  time 
of  meet  ng  each  year  was  the  usual  time,  4th  Wednesday  of  May. 

103d.  To  the  one  hundred  and  third  Interrogatory  he   saith — I  answer  no. 
104th.  To  the  one  hundred  and  fourth  Interrogatory  he  saith — I  answer  no. 
105ih.  To  the  one  hundred  and  fifth  Interrogatory  he  saith — There  is  such 
a  body,  and  its  ministerial  members  are  named  in  my  answer  to  the  seventy- 
eighth  interrogatory,  together  with  Mr.  David  Bullions,  and  a  Mr.   Quacken- 
boss,  who  have  been  added  to  it  since  its  first  orgainization  in  1841. 

106th.  To  the  one  hundred  and  sixth  Interrogatory  he  saith— With  the  ex- 


287 

ception  of  Mr.  Quackenboss,  these  persons  were  all  either  ministers  or  licen- 
tiates of  the  Associate  Church,  but  are  not  so  now,  having-  been  regularly  and 
justly  denuded  of  their  office  by  the  judicatories  of  said  Church. 

107th.  To  the  one  hundred  and  seventh  Interrogatory  he  saith — I  answer 
hoth  branches  of  the  interrogatory  in  the  negative. 

lOSih.  To  the  one  hundred  and  eighth  Interrogatory  he  saith — No. 

109th.  To  the  one  hundred  and  ninth  Interrogatory  he  saith — They  have. 

110th.  To  the  one  hundred  and  tenth  Int^errogatory  he  saith— I  consider  Mf. 
Stark's  statement  of  the  matter  referred,  as  a  gross  misrepresentation  of  the 
decision  of  the  Synod.  The  decision  was  as  follows,  "Resolved,  That  the 
party  of  which  he  (Mr.  Stark)  was  a  member,  is  not  the  Associate  Presbytery 
of  Albany,  but  was  irregular  in  their  constitution  and  all  their  acts  null  and 
void.  Eesolved,  That  the  body  of  which  Messrs.  Martin  and  Campbell  are 
members,  is  truly  the  Associate  Presbytery  of  Albany."  The  party  contem- 
plated by  the  former  resolution,  was  composed  of  Messrs.  E.  Bullions,  Blair 
and  Stark,  ministers,  together  with  their  three  elders.  The  body  contempla- 
ted by  the  latter  resolution  was  composed  of  Messrs.  Law,  D.  Frost,  Graham, 
Martin  and  Campbell,  ministers,  together  with  the  elders  who  were  entitled  to 
seats  when  in  attendance,  though  at  the  time  the  separation  took  place  in  the 
Presbytery,  only  two  of  the  ministers  and  one  of  the  elders  composing  this 
body  were  present.  But  the  Synod  never  decided  that  these  three  members 
were  the  Presbytery  of  Albany,  but  that  the  body  of  which  they  were  mem- 
bers was  the  Presbytery  of' Albany.  Besides,  ^ir»  Sta  k  and  his  elders  had 
been  turned  out  of  Presbytery  nine  months  before  that  time,  and  it  was  their 
unlawful  intrusion  into  the  Presbytery  that  mainly  caused  the  three  members 
alluded  to,  to  retire  and  constitute  the  Presbytery  in  another  place. 

Lastly.  To  the  last  Interrogatory  he  saith — I  know  and  have  heard  of  noth- 
ing that  would  tend  to  the  benefit  and  advantage  of  Complainants  in  this  cause 
other  than  what  I  have  stated. 


1st.  To  the  first  cross-Interrogatory  he  saith — The  few  statements  respect- 
ing the  early  history  of  the  Ass.  Church  in  this  country,  contained  in  the  bill  of 
complaint,  I  know  to  be  correct  from  authentic  historical  records,  especially 
from  the  narrative  prefixed  to  the  testimony  of  said  Church,  pages  39  to  60, 
and  a  book  entitled  Sermons  and  Sketches.  My  knowledge  on  this  subject  is 
not  a  matter  of  mere  opinion,  but  of  historical  faith,  and  I  know  of  no  diver- 
sity of  sentiment  or  opinion  respecting  it. 

2d.  To  the  second  cross-Interrogatory  he  saith — The  authorities  to  which  I 
refer  are  the  subordinate  standards  of  the  Associate  Church  in  the  Westmin- 
ster confession  of  faith,  catechisms,  Presbyterial  form  of  Church  Government 
and  the  declaration  and  testimony,  together  with  AVilson's  defence,  Gibb's  dis- 
play, Alexander  and  Rufus,  book  of  discipline  and  minutes  of  Synod.  My 
answer  is  matter  of  certain  knowledge  founded  on  these  authorities.  It  is  to 
be  presumed  that  those  who  have  abandoned  the  Associate  Church,  will  mis- 
construe her  principles.  In  the  Church  I  know  of  no  difference  of  opinion. 
Some  claiming  to  be  members  of  the  Associate  Church,  may  difTer  with  me  in 
opinion. 

3rd.  To  the  third  cross-Interrogatory  he  saith — I  think  it  probable  that  I 
have  seen  the  original  minutes,  but  I  know  certainly  that  I  have  seen  and  read 
extracts,  commencing  Oct.  4,  1837,  and  ending  July  17,  1838,  labelled  copy 
exhibit  Q,  marked  A,  and  herewith  attached  and  returned,  to  which  I  refer  for 
further  answer.  I  read  the  copy  at  my  house  in  Cannonsburgh.  I  have  not 
memorized  them  particularly,  but  have  a  general  recollection  of  the  contents* 


2S8 

Said  copy  is  Lefore  mc  now,  and  has  been  a  short  time   in  my  liands,  being 
handed  to  me  by  D.  Ramsey,  about  a  week  since. 

4th.  To  the  fourth  cross-Interrogatory  he  saith — I  refer  to  the  authorities 
cited  in  my  answer  to  said  interrogatory. 

5th.  To  the  fifth  cross-Interrogatory  he  saith — I  have  quoted  my  authorities 
in  answering  said  interrogatory.  To  the  rest  of  this  interrogatory  I  refer  to 
my  answer  to  the  first  and  second  cross-interrogalories. 

6th.  To  the  sixth  cross-Inlerrogatory  he  saith — I  have  given  my  authority 
in  answering  said  interrogatory.  My  answer  there  is  based  on  the  express 
words  of  ihe  rule  referred  to,  which  says  "  that  a  protest  against  a  definitive 
sentence  may  be  rejected."  As  to  matter  of  opinion  and  differences  of  opin- 
:on,  I  refer  to  my  answer  1o  the  first  and  second  cross-interrogalories. 

7th.  To  the  seventh  cross-interrogatory  he  saith— I  have  no  recollection  of 
having  heard  D.  Bullions  express  himself  in  such  a  manner,  nor  can  I  see 
how  he  could  possibly  indulge  a  hope  of  having  the  difficulties  settled  in  Pres- 
bytery, after  having  disowned  their  authority,  and  while  continuing  in  a  state 
of  open  contumacy,  he  ceased  to  attend  the  meetings  of  Presbytery,'  and  there- 
fore could  not  "  at  each  meeting  insist  on  his  right  of  protest,"  &c. 

8th.  To  the  eighth  cross-Interrogatory  he  saith — I  am  acquainted  with  the 
minutes  of  the  Presbytery  of  Cambridge,  as  I  have  asserted  in  my  answer  to 
the  third  cross-interrogatory;  and  for  further  answer  to  this  interrogatory,  lie- 
fer to  the  authorities  cited  in  my  answer  to  the  I7th  direct  interrogatory,  and 
jilso  to  my  answers  to  the  first  and  second  cross  interrogatory. 

9th.  To  the  ninth  cross-Interrogatory  he  saith — lu  answering  said  interroga- 
tory I  cited  my  authorities.  The  case  stated  is  not  in  accordance  with  the  dis- 
cipline of  the  said  church,  but  according  to  the  common  practice  of  our  Judi-  • 
eateries,  either  party  to  a  cause  or  any  member  of  the  court  can  put  in  an  ob- 
jection to  a  member's  sitting  in  that  cause,  and  then  the  court  is  to  decide 
tipon  the  validity  of  the  objection.  My  authority  is  the  common  usage  and 
common  sense. 

10th.  To  the  tenth  cross-Interrogatory  he  saith  — Messrs.  Goodwillie  and 
Pringle  were  near  relations  of  D.  Bullions,  and  had  given  manifest  evidence 
•of  an  undue  partiality  in  his  favor.  The  Presbytery  therefore  had  the  right  to 
exclude  them  both  together  from  sitting  in  Presbytery  when  Dr.  Bullions's  case 
was  under  consideration.  My  authority  is  Perdivan,  book  iv.  title  5,  sec.  9, 
They  were  alike  relations,  one  being  the  brother-in-law  and  the  other  the  son- 
in-law  of  Dr.  Bullions. 

11th.  To  the  eleventh  cross-Interrogatory  he  saith — Besides  the  authorities 
•cited  in  my  answers  to  said  interrogatories  I  would  also  refer  to  the  common 
practice  of  church  judicatories  and  to  the  common  sense  of  mankind.  I  do 
not  know  that  I  differ  from  others  upon  the  subject. 

12th.  To  the  twelfth  cross-Interrogatory  he  saith — The  doctrine  of  the  As- 
sociate Church  is,  that  in  private  or  personal  causes,  or  causes  which  only  con- 
cern one's  self  the  sentences  of  church  judicatories  are  to  be  submitted  to 
though  we  do  not  see  the  equity  of  them.  But  in  all  matters  affecting  the 
public  cause  of  God  the  case  is  difl^erent.  Their  all  unscriptural  decisions 
ought  to  be  opposed  and  resisted.  Wilson's  defence,  p.  p.  397  and  398.  Al- 
exander and  Rufus,  p.  126 ;  Testimony,  p.  126. 

13th.  To  the  thirteenth  cross-Interrogatory  he  saith — In  mere  private  and 
personal  causes,  and  where  the  public  cause  of  God  is  not  affected,  members  are 
bound  to  submit  to  the  decisions  of  church  judicatories  though  they  may  not 
be  able  to  see  their  entire  accordance  with  the  word  of  God  and  standards  of 
the  church.    I  refer  to  the  authorities  cited  in  my  last  answer.     In  answer  to 


■^e  remaining  part  of  the  interrogatory  in  addition  to  the  authorities  cited  ia 
my  answers  to  the  interrogatories  mentioned,  I  would  refer  to  the  common 
practice  of  thtj  church, 

14th.  To  the  fourteenth  cross-Interrogatory  he  saith — I  refer  to  the  answers 
^iven  to  the  interrogatories  here  mentioned.  Dr.  Bullions's  cause  was  one  of 
entirely  a  private  and  personal  nature  according  to  the  authorities  cited,  and 
therefore  he  and  his  congregation  were  bound  to  submit  to  the  decisions  of  the 
judicatories  respecting  him,  though  they  may  not  have  seen  the  equity  of  them. 
As  Mr.Stark  is  in  much  the  same  condemnation  with  Dr.  Bullions,  his  mis- 
takes in  the  Doctor's  favor  are  quite  natural.  As  to  opinions  I  refer  to  my  an- 
swers to  the  first  and  second  interrogatories. 

15th.  To  the  fifteenth  cross-Interrogatory  he  saith — My  answers  to  the  in- 
terrogatories here  stated  are  not  mere  opinions  of  my  own,  but  are  grounded 
on  the  authorities  there  quoted,  and  the  common  practice  of  the  Church,  and 
ethei  satisfactory  evidence;  and  as  to  differences  in  opinion,  I  refer  to  my  an- 
swer to  the  first  and  second  cross-interrogatory. 

16tb.  To  the  sixteenth  cross-Interrogatory  he  saith — Mr.  Erskine  and  his 
•associates  had  no  standing  at  all  after  their  deposition,  in  the  Church  that  de- 
posed them,  for  they  had  seceded  from  that  Church  several  years  before  their 
deposition.  My  knowledge  on  this  subject  is  obtained  from  authentic  history 
and  is  not  mere  matter  of  opinion. 

17th.  To  the  seventeenth  cross-Interrogatory  he  saith — I  quote  B.  of  Dis. 
page  12,  which  defines  the  power  of  Synod,  in  ans.  to  53,  and  to  commoa 
usage  and  common  sence  in  answer  to  54th. 

19th.  To  the  nineteenth  cross-Interrogatory  he  saith — I  answer  by  referring 
to  my  last  answer  to  the  authorities  cited  in  answer  to  direct  interrogatories, 
66  and  67,  and  to  the  powers  and  duties  of  Session  and  Presbyteries,  as  de- 
fined in  book  of  Discipline  p.  p.  9  and  11  ;  my  answer  is  matter  of  certain 
knowledge  derived  from  those  authorities,  and  as  to  opinions  and  differences  of 
opinion  1  refer  to  my  answer  to  the  first  and  second  cross-interrogatones. 

20th.  To  the  twentieth  cross-Interrogatory  he  saith — The  duty  of  the  Dea- 
con in  general  is  to  take  care  of  the  temporalities  of  the  Church.     B.  Dis.  p.  5. 

21st.  To  the  twenty-first  cross-Interrogatory  he  saith — A  minister  cannot  be 
imposed  upon  a  congregation  as  a  pastor,  or  constant  supply  witliout  their  con- 
sent, but  may  as  an  occasional  supply.  A  Presbytery  or  Synod  has  nothing 
to  do  with  the  temporalities  of  a  congregation,  any  further  than  the  temporal- 
ities may  be  viewed  as  connected  with  the  existence  and  spiritual  welfare  of 
said  Congregation.  Churches  and  other  buildings  appertaining  are  generally 
-erected  at  the  expense  of  the  Congregation  erecting  them,  who  also  have  the 
Tight  to  direct  and  control  them.  The  Associate  Church  never  asks  the  laws 
of  the  land,  to  yield  to  her  decisions,  but  only  her  members  who  have  volun- 
tarily promised  subjection  to  their  authority  in  the  Lord.  I  refer  to  the  stand- 
ards of  the  Church. 

22d.  To  the  twenty-second  cross-Interrogatory  he  saith — Admitting  that  all 
are  alike  fallible,  yet  some  maybe  placed  in  that  position  in  respect  to  ecclesi- 
astical decisions  which  would  mistake  in  opinions  about  them,  more  probable 
than  in  the  case  of  others  standing  in  a  different  position.  I  do  not  pretend 
to  be  infallible. 

23d.  To  the  twenty- third  cross-Interrogatory  he  saith — Those  answers  are 
not  matters  of  mere  opinion,  but  of  historical  faith.  I  refer  to  the  authorities 
there  cited. 

24th.  To  the  twenty-fourth  cross-Interrogatory  he  saith — Those  numbers  of 
the  Associate  Presbyterian  Magazine,  which  I  have  seen,  I  received  principally 
37 


290 

through  the  agency  of  Andrew  Wliitc,  in  Albany.  I  think  the  memders  were 
genuine.  I  herewith  send  a  number  of  the  said  work,  the  address  upon  the 
cover  of  which  1  believe  to  be  in  the  hand  writing  of  Hr.  Peter  Bullions,  the 
Editor,  marked  1>.  and  signed  by  me  with  my  name.  My  answer  is  not  mat- 
ter of  opinion  only,  but  of  fixed  ond  firm  belief  jn  which  1  think  I  am  not  mis- 
taken. A  few  of  the  articles  in  that  work  are  answers  to  some  things  in  the 
Monitor,  and  Chauncy  Webster  was  the  author  of  some  of  those  things,  but 
he  was  not  the  editor  at  that  time.  Chauncy  Webster  is  now  a  member  of  the 
Associate  Church  in  good  standing.  The  Synod  at  its  last  meeting  made  a 
decision  on  tlie  subject  of  submission  to  ecclesiastical  decisions,  in  accordance 
with  my  views  on  that  subject,  and  in  which  Mr.  Webster  acquiesced  without 
expressing  any  dissent.  There  may  be  some  difference  of  opinion  in  our  own 
Church  upon  the  subject ;  some  who  claim  to  be  members  do  differ  with  me 
in  opinion.  The  authorities  called  for,  I  have  given  in  my  answers  to  the 
direct  interrogatories.  I  know  of  no  person  that  pleads  for  submission  to  ec- 
clesiastical decisions  right  or  wrong. 

25th.  To  the  twenty-fifth  cross-Interrogatory  he  saith — I  know  by  having 
compared  their  answers  Avith  the  standard  authorities  of  the  church  to  which  I 
have  heretofore  referred,  my  answers  are  not  mere  matters  of  opinion,  and  I 
have  already  cited  authorities.  The  Defendants  and  others,  claiming  to  be 
members  of  the  church,  do  differ  with  me  on  this,  but  among  those  in  the 
church  I  know  of  no  difference  of  opinion,     I  believe  I  am  not  mistaken. 

^6th.  To  the  twenty-sixth  cross-Interrogatory  he  saith — As  I  have  before 
stated,  I  regard  the  words  in  question  as  enforcing  the  submission  promised, 
but  even  if  viewed  as  in  some  measure,  limiting  submission,  they  can  give  no 
countenance  to  rebellion  against  decisions  which  relate  to  mere  private  and 
personal  causes,  as  this  would  produce  a  clashing  wjth  the  authorities  before 
cited.  They  are  certainly  not  considered  by  any  in  the  church  as  immaterial. 
I  have  no  further  authorities  to  cite. 

27th.  To  the  twenty-seventh  cross-Interrogatory  he  saith — I  cannot  now 
state  how  I  voted  in  every  instance  in  the  cases  referred  to,  but  my  name  stands 
in  the  ayes  and  noes,  where  it  may  be  seen.  I  know  that  generally  I  voted 
against  Dr.  Bullions  and  the  Presbytery  of  Vermont. 

28th.  To  the  twenty-eight  cross-Interrogatory  he  saith — T  was  one  of  the 
three  members  who  considered  the  intrusion  of  Mr.  Stark  and  his  elder  into  the 
Presbytery,  together  with  certain  other  profane,  disorderly  and  fraudulent 
proceedings  as  indicati^'e  that  that  assembly  could  not  be  a  lawfully  consti- 
tuted cour^  of  Jesus  Christ,  and  who  accordingly  did  retire  and  constitute  the 
Presbytery  of  Albany  in  another  place  with  the  assistance  of  a  fourth  mem- 
ber, who  had  in  the  mean  time  arrived..  I  was  the  sole  editor  and  proprietor 
of  the  Religious  Monitor  from  November,  1835,  till  iSlay,  1839.  I  was  the 
writer  of  all  the  articles  appeared  as  editorial,  some  of  which  were  condemn- 
atory of  the  course  of  Dr.  Bullions.  Mr.  Stark  and  others  who  were  endeav- 
oring to  produce  a  schism  in  the  Associate  Church,  contrary  to  the  word  of 
God  and  their  ordination  vows.  I  never  had  any  personal  difficulty  with  Dr. 
Bullions,  and  only  opposed  him  on  public  ecclesiastical  grounds.  I  was  on 
very  friendly  terms  with  Mr.  Stark  until  he  w^as  libelled  and  suspended  for 
certain  immoralities  since  which  time  I  have  had  no  intercourse  with  him  ; 
acted  towards  him  as  directed,  ii.  Thess.  iii.  chap.  6th  and  14th  verses. 
I  have  preached  and  published  a  sermon  on  the  text,  "  Obey  them  that  have 
the  rule  over  you  and  submit  yourselves,"  Heb.  13,  17.,  but  it  contains  no 
such  sentiments  as  here  imputed  to  it.  The  tenor  of  the  sermon  is  to  explain 
and  enforce  the  duty  of  submission  to  the  decision  of  church  courts.     I  believe 


291 

there  is  great  unanimity  among  the  members  of  the  Associate  Church  on  this 
subject,  while  it  appears  that  some  of  those  who  have  been  laid  under  the 
censures  of  the  church,  profess  to  think  differently.  On  this  subject  I  think  I 
am  not  mistaken.  I  left  Albany  in  July,  ] 842,  and  had  no  particular  inter- 
course with  Dr.  Bullions  for  some  years  before  that  time.  I  have  always  pro- 
fessed to  be  a  friend  of  Dr.  Bullions,  but  not  of  his  public  course  of  conduct. 

Lastly.  To  the  last  cross-Interrogatory  he  saith — I  know  of  nothing  more 
that  would  be  of  benefit  or  advantage  to  the  Defendants  than  what  T  have  al- 
ready stated.  '  JAMES  IMARTIN. 

Examination  taken,  reduced  to  writing,  and  sworn  to,  this  sixth  day  of  July, 


1843,  before  us.  Jno.  L.  Gow,  ,  ^        .    . 

"■  Commissioners. 


Jas,  Watson.  ) 


Adjourned  to  meet  at  the  same  place,  June  10th,  1843,  and  now,  viz  ,  June 
10th,  1843  ;  met  pursuant  to  agreement.  Alexander  T.  McGill,  of  the  City 
of  Alleghany',  in  the  State  of  Pennsylvania,  being  duly  and  publicly  sworn 
and  examined  on  the  part  of  the  pluintifT,  doth  depose  and  say. 

1st.  To  the  first  Interrogatory  he  sai'h — My  name  is  Alexander  T.  McGill, 
and  my  occupation  is  Professor  of  Ecclesiastical  History  and  Church  Govern- 
ment in  the  Western  Theological  Seminary  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the 
City  of  Alleghany,  in  the  County  of  Alleghany  and  State  of  Pennsylvania, 
and  my  residence  is  in  the  said  City  of  Alleghany. 

2d.  To  the  second  Interrogatory  he  saith — I  have  known  some  of  the  indi- 
viduals referred  to,  namely,  William  Stevenson,  Dr  Alexander  Bullions,  John 
Robertson,  William  Robertson,  Edward  Small  and  Peter  Hill. 

50. h.  To  the  fiftieth  Interrogatory  he  saith — I  was  a  member  of  that  Synod, 
and  we  were  the  commissioners  appointed  under  the  resolution  referred  to. 
51st.  To  the  fifty-first  Interrogatory  he  saith — It  was. 
52d.  To  the  fifty-second  Interrogatory  he  saith — I  answer  afHrmatively. 
55th.  To  the  fifty-fifth  Interrogatory  he  saith — We    did,  as   commissioners, 
visit  the  Associate  Congregation  at  Cambridge,  and  on  the  evening  of  Satur- 
day, the  16th  or  17th  of  June,  1833,  we  made  known    to   Dr.  Bullions,  some 
of  his  Elders  and  Trustees,  the  object  of  onr  visit.     We  visited  Dr.  Bullions 
at  his  house,  and  made  known  our  errand  in  the  most  kind  and  friendly  man- 
ner.    The  Doctor  received  us  harshly,  and  said  to  me  that  he  had  once  form- 
ed a  very    favorable  opinion  of  me   from    what  he  had  heard  ;  but  was  sorry 
that  I  had  consented  to  serve   the  Synod  in  such   a  business,  or   something  to 
that  effect  ;  that  he  consideted  any  interference  between   him  and  his  people, 
like  interfering  between  a  man  and  his  wife ;  on  the  same  evening  the  Trus- 
tees and  some  of  the  prominent   members   met  at  the  house  of  Dr.   Bullions, 
having  been  previously   invited  there  by  himself  to  consult,  as  we  supposed, 
about  his  course   the  next  day,  (it  being    Sabbath.)     We  remained  with  Dr. 
Bullions   un!il   the  Trustees  and  Members,  before  referred  to,  met ;  the  sub- 
ject was  then  introduced,  I  think,  by  Dr.  Bullions.     He  proceeded  to  make  in- 
correct statements  about  the  proceedings  of  the  Synod  in  his  case.     We  were 
obliged  to  contradict  his  statement  ;    considerable  dispute  ensued,    but  it  was 
conducted  on  our  part  with  the  most  moderate  and  friendly  feelings.   We  made 
known  to  the  Trustees  and  Members  present  our  errand,  and  formally  request- 
ed them  to  permit  us  on  the  next  day  to  occupy  the    church  in  oraer   to   fulfil 
the  duties  imposed  on  us  by   the   Synod.     Dr.  Bullions  slated  his  determina- 
lion  to  occupy  the  pulpit  himself,  if  the  TrusJees  would  consent.     We  read  to 
them  our  commission  from  the  Synod,  and  urged  them  to  decide  on  our  re- 
quest.    Five  of  them  were  present;  in  the   vole  one    declined  voting;  one 
Toted  to  give  us  the  church,  two  voted  against  our  request,  and  one  in  the 


292 

chair  refused  lo  express  his  opinion.  We  (hen  retired  from  ihat  meeting,  in- 
forming ihcm  thai  we  would  si  ill  seek  an  opporiuniiy  of  performing  our  duty 
to  the  people  of  that  church. 

Next  morning  being  Sabbath  we  repaired  to  the  church  about  half  an  hour 
before  the  time  for  public  worship  and  found  the  doors  of  the  church  closed. 
We  waited  about  filtcen  minutes,  and  then  John  or  Wm.  Robertson  proceeded 
to  open  the  doors  and  found  them  locked.  He  then  demanded  of  the  sexton 
to  open  the  house  as  the  usual  lime  for  worship  had  arrived.  One  of  the 
Trustees,  I  believe  Shiland  was  his  name,  then  proceeded  to  read  to  the  peo- 
ple who  had  assembled  to  a  considerable  number  before  the  church,  the  note  of 
the  Trustees,  refusing  us  the  use  of  the  church.  This  I  believe  was  the  pur- 
port of  his  note,  but  could  not  distinctly  hear.  I  then  read  a  paper  in  which 
we  made  known  to  the  people  our  commission  by  the  Synod.  The  decision 
of  Synod  in  Doct.  Bullions's  case  declaring  to  them  that  the  church  was  va- 
cant, and  his  pastoral  relations  dissolved.  We  then  requested  the  congrega'? 
tion  to  retire  with  us  to  the  house  of  William  Robertson  for  public  worship  and 
gave  notice  that  a  congregational  meeting  would  be  held  on  the  following 
Wednesday  at  a  certain  house  not  recollected.  The  paper  read  by  me  at  that 
time  I  believe  I  handed  to  John  Kobertson,  signed  by  both  commissioners  ;  the 
contents  of  which  I  do  not  precisely  recollect.  Near  about  the  usual  time  of 
worship  many  of  the  people  met  with  us  at  the  house  of  William  Robertson. 
We  both  preached  at  his  house,  and  a  meeting  of  the  session  was  called  dur- 
ing the  Sabbath.  This  meeting  was  regularly  constituted  by  one  of  the  com- 
missioners, and  we  considered  it  the  lawful  session  of  Cambridge  Church. 
During  the  intervening  time  from  Sabbath  until  Wednesday,  I  visited  indus- 
triously in  company  with  John  Robertson  a  number  of  families  adhering  to  Dr. 
Bullions,  and  was  received  for  the  most  part  with  much  kindness.  The  ob- 
ject of  my  visit  to  these  families  was  to  reconcile  them  to  the  decision  of  Pres- 
bytery and  Synod. 

Both  John  Robertson  and  myself  cautiously  guarded  against  every  word  that 
might  be  considered  harsh  or  unfriendly  to  Dr.  Bullions  or  his  friends.  The 
result  of  that  private  visitation  was  that  we  were  permitted  to  enter  the  church 
at  the  congregational  meeting.  On  Wednesday  before  entering  the  church  we 
stipulated  witii  the  Trustees  that  we  must  be  received  as  the  commissioners 
of  the  Synod.  To  tPiis  they  consented  with  some  reluctance.  The  congrega- 
tional meeting  was  larger  than  we  expected.  Mr.  McKie  ascended  the  pulpit 
■with  intention  to  preach,  from  which  he  was  prevented  by  the  friends  of  Dr. 
Bullions,  who  immediately  organized  a  meeting  by  calling  one  to  the  chair 
who  I  think  was  friendly  to  Doct.  Bullions.  During  that  meeting  we  expos- 
tulated with  the  congregation  on  their  error  in  sustaining  Dr.  Bullions,  and 
their  resisting  the  government  and  discipline  of  the  church.  After  considera- 
ble deliberation  a  committee  was  appointed  to  confer  with  the  commissioners, 
Dr.  Bullions  and  the  Presbytery,  with  a  view  to  effect  a  reconciliation  and 
the  adjustment  of  all  their  difliculties.  This  committee  consisted  I  think  of 
three  friends  of  Dr.  Bullions,  and  two  of  the  Synod.  My  visit  continued  for 
about  five  days,  having  left  the  day  afier  the  congregational  meeting. 

Lastly,  I  know  of  nothinc  more  material  than  what  I  nave  already  stated. 

ALEX.  T.  McGILL. 

Examination  of  Alexander  McGill  taken,  reduced  to  writing  and  sworn  to 

this  tenth  day  of  June,  1843. 

Jas.  Watson,  )  >-,        .    • 

T       T    /-I         }  Commissioners, 

Jno.  L.  Gow.  ) 


293 

EXHIBITS  BEFORE  THE  COMMISSIONERS,  MARKED  AND  RETURNED  BY  TDEM. 

EXHIBIT  A. 

Extract  from  the  minutes  of  Cambridge  Presbytery  referred  to  in  the  depo- 
sitions of  Rev.  Tliomas  Beveridge,  James  Ramsey  and  James  Martin,  and  par- 
ticularly mentioned  in  their  answers  to  the  3d  cross-Interrogatory,  being  a  copy 
of  Exhibit  Q.  proved  before  Mr.  Gibson,  Examiner.     See  page  226. 

EXHIBIT  B. 
'    The  Associate  Presbyterian  Magazine,  Vol.  1,  No.  1,  July.  Rev.  P.  Bullions, 
D.  D.  Editor.     Produced  by  Rev.  James   Martin,  in  answer  to  24th  cross-in- 
terrogatory. 

IN  CHANCERY, 

Before    the    Chancellor. 


William  Stevenson,  et  al.  ) 

vs.  >  Deposition  of  Abram  Anderson. 

Alexander  Bullions,  et  al.  ) 


Deposition  of  Abram  Anderson,  a  witness  produced  and  sworn  and  examin- 
ed, in  a  certain  cause  now  depending  and  undetermined  in  the  court  of  Chan- 
cery of  the  State  of  New- York,  before  the  Chancellor,  wherein  William  Ste- 
venson, William  Robertson,  William  McGeoch,  Edward  Small,  James  McAr- 
thur,  John  McArthur,  Robert  McArthur,  Refer  iVlcArthur,  George  Small,  James 
Arnot,  Edward  Cook,  John  Arnot,  John  Robertson,  Thomas  McMorris,  James 
Hoy,  John  McDoual,  Isaac  Ashton,  John  Foster,  and  William  Livingston,  are 
Complainants,  and  Alexander  Bullions,  James  Coulter,  James  Shiland,  Robert 
McClellan  and  Peter  Hill,  together  with  the  Associate  Congregation  of  Cam- 
bridge of  the  County  of  Washington  and  State  of  New- York,  adhering  to  the 
principles  of  the  Associate  Presbytery  of  Pennsylvania,  formerly,  now  the 
Associate  Synod  of  North  America,  are  Defendants,  on  the  part  and  behalf  of 
the  said  Complainants,  before  Luther  J.  Howe  one  of  the  Examiners  in  Chan- 
cery in  and  for  the  County  of  Washington  and  State  of  New-York,  at  the 
office  of  the  said  Luther  J.  Howe  in  AVhite  Creek  in  said  County,  on  the  21st 
day  of  July,  in  the  year  of  our  Lord,  1S43. 

The  Complainants  offer  as  a  witness  the  Reverend  Abram  Anderson. 

The  Defendants'  counsel  objects  to  this  witness  being  sworn  on  the  ground 
that  he  has  been  fully  examined  in  this  cause  already  on  the  part  of  the  Corn- 
plainants.  The  objection  is  over-ruled  by  the  Examiner  and  the  said  Abram 
Anderson  is  sworn  and  deposeth  as  follows,  to  wit : — 

I  am  some  acquainted  with  Andrew  Stark,  a  witness  sworn  in  this  cause. 

Question  by  Complainants'  counsel — Are  you  acquainted  with_,  Alexander- 
Bullions  ? 

Answer — I  am. 

Question  by  Complainants' counsel — Do  you  know  the  relation  in  which  they 
both  stand  to  the  Associate  Church,  and  is  their  relation  the  same  and  are 
they  both  deposed  ministers?  The  Defendants'  counsel  objects  to  the  whole 
question  because  it  has  been  asked  and  answered  by  the  witness  in  his  former 
examination,  and  because  this  is  not  the  highest  evidence  of  that  fact,  and  that 
it  is  immaterial,  and  that  it  cannot  be  proved  by  parole  evidence.  The  objec- 
tion is  over-ruled  by  the  Examiner  and  the  witness  answers  as  follows,  to  wit : 

Answer — I  understand  that  they  both  sustain  the  same  relation  to  the  As* 
soeiate  Church,  and  that  they  are  both  deposed. 


2S3 


Question  by  Complainants'  Counsel. — Are  you  acquainted  witli  David  Bul- 
lions, the  son  of  Dr.  Bullions? 
Answer — I  am. 

Question  by  Complainants'  Counsel. — Had  the  associate  Presbytery  of  Cam- 
bridge at  any  time,  any  jurisdiction  over  him?  The  Defendants' counsel  ob- 
jects to  this  question  as  irrelevant  and  immaterial.  The  objection  is  over-ruled 
by  the  Examiner,  and  the  witness  answered  as  follows  to  wit. 

Answer — Yes  Sir  they  had.  They  did  exercise  jurisdiction  over  him,  and 
after  due  process,  they  deprived  him  of  his  license  and  suspended  him  from 
the  Communion  of  the  Church,  on  the  5th  day  of  October,  1842.  I  was  then 
clerk  of  the  said  Presbytery.  The  paper  produced  here  by  Complainants' 
counsel  is  a  true  copy  of  the  minutes  of  the  proceedings  of  the  Presbytery  in 
ref^ard  to  their  dealings  with  him,  which  is  hereto  annexed,  marked  "Exhibit 
A,  before  the  present  Examiner. 

Question  by  the  Complainants' counsel.  To  what  Synod  does  the  Associate 
Presbytery  of  Cambridge  belong?  This  question  is  objected  toby  the  De- 
fendants' counsel  because  the  question  has  been  asked  and  answered  by  this 
witness  on  his  former  Examination.  The  objection  is  over-ruled  by  the  Exam- 
iner and  the  witness  answered  as  follows  to  wit. 

Answer — It  belongs  to  what  has  been  known  for  about  40  years  as  the  As- 
sociate Synod  of  North  America. 

Question  by  Complainant's  counsel.  Did  or  not  that  Synod  meet  in  Cam- 
bridn-e  in  June  1841?  The  question  is  objected  to  by  the  Defendants'  counsel 
for  the  same  reason  that  the  last  question  Avas  objected  to,  and  because  the 
minutes  of  Synod  will  best  show  when  the  Synod  met  and  where,  and  because 
it  does  not  orov/  out  of  the  testimony  of  any  other  witness  except  on  a  ques- 
tion put  by  Complainants'  counsel  which  were  immaterial  and  the  answer  to 
which  they  are  bound  by.  The  objection  is  over-ruled  by  the  Examiner,  and 
the  witness  answered  as  follows,  to  wit: 

Answer — It  did  not.  It  had  met  in  May,  1841,  at  Washington  in  Pennsyl- 
vania and  adjourned  ro  meet  at  Xenia  in  Ohio  in  May,  1842.  J  am  a  m.em- 
ber  of  the  Associate  Synod  of  North  America,  and  have  been  since  1822.  The 
Associate  Synod  of  North  America  hold  their  meetings  annually  generally. 
Thev  always  have  except  in  two  cases.  From  May,  1832  it  was  adjourned  to 
October,  1833  and  from  October,  1835,  it  was  adjourned  to  May,  1836.  I  am 
acquainted  with  Duncan  Stalker,  Archibald  Whyte,  Thomas  Goodwillie,  Wil- 
liam Prino-le,  Dr.  Peter  Bullions,  Dr.  Alexander  Bullions,  Andrew  Stark,  Rev. 
Mr.  Quackenbush,  Rev.  Mr.  Blair  and  Rev.  David  G.  Bullions. 

Question  by  Complainants'  counsel.  Do  any  or  all  of  these  men  belong  to 
the  Associate  Synod  of  North  America  or  did  they  in  1841.  This  question  is 
objected  to  by  the  Defendants'  counsel  on  the  same  ground  as  was  the  objec- 
tion to  the  last  question.  The  objection  is  over-ruled  by  the  examiner  and  the 
witness  answers  as  follows,  to  wit: — 

Answer — I  believe  none  of  them  are  members  of  that  Synod,  nor  were  they 
in  the  year  1841.  ^  ABRAHAM  ANDERSON 

Sworn,    examined    and  subscribed,  ' 
on  the  21st  day  of  July  in  the  year 


1843,  before  me, 

LUTPER  J.  HOWE,  Examiner  in  Chancery. 


EXHIBIT  A. 


Extracts  from  the  minutes  of  the  Associate  Presbytery  of  Cambridge  on  the 
tase  of  Mr.  David  Bullions,  as  follows  :— 


295 

Putnam,  July  6,  1842,  Presbytery  agreed  to  take  np  the  case  of  IV' r.  David 
Bullions.  After  deliberation  it  was  resolved,  that  the  Associate  Session  of 
Cambridge  be  directed  to  take  measures  as  soon  as  possible  to  ascertain  what 
parts  are  relevant  against  David  Bullions,  and  what  evidence  there  is  to  sup- 
port them  ;  to  take  the  evidence  and  transmit  it  with  the  facts  to  the  Presbyte- 
ry of  Ohio.  It  was  further  resolved  that  in  case  the  session  find  it  necessary 
that  the  Presbytery  of  Ohio  should  have  the  information  respecting  Mr.  D. 
Bullions  before  they  are  ready  to  transmit  it,  they  be  directed  to  demand  of  that 
Presbytery  to  delay  the  trial  of  D.  Bullions,  and  the  presentation  af  the  case 
till  thev  can  be  ready  with  their  statement  and  evidence, 

Hebron,  Aug.  3d,  1842,  the  following  resolution  was  offered  and  adopted, 
viz:  Whereas,  it  is  credibly  reported  that  Mr.  David  Bullions  has  accepted  a 
call  to  a  pastoral  charge,  in  connexion  with  an  association  of  men  under  depo- 
sition by  the  Associate  Church,  thereby  abandoning  his  profession  and  violat- 
ing his  vows  at  licensure.  Presbytery  resolve  to  cite  him  to  appear  before  them 
at  their  meeting  at  Salem  on  the  3d  Thursday  of  August  instant,  at  11  o'clock, 
A.  M.  to  answer  for  his  conduct,  and  to  suspend  his  licensure  w'hich  they  here- 
by do  till  his  case  be  tried. 

Salem,  August  18th,  1842.  On  inquiry  it  was  found  that  the  citation  order- 
ed to  JMr.  David  Bullions  avss  duly  served,  and  it  was  returned  certified  Mr. 
D.  Bullions  not  being  present,  it  v.as  resolved  that  he  be  cited  to  appear  before 
this  Presbytery  at  the  next  meeting,  on  the  charge  pending  with  certification 
that  if  he  do  not  then  attend,  they  will  proceed  in  his  case  as  though  present;, 
it  was  also  resolved,  that  a  notice  of  Presbytery's  proceedings  in  the  case  be 
inserted  in  the  Evangelical  Repository. 

Argyle,  Oct.  5th,  1842.  Papers  were  called  for.  No.  1  was  given  in  and 
read,  which  was  the  return  of  the  citation  and  certification  to  Mr.  D.  Bullions. 
It  was  agreed  to  take  up  the  case  of  Mr.  D.  Bullions,  and  the  following  pre-- 
amble  and  resolution  were  adopted,  viz:  Whereas,  Mr.  D.  Bullions  has  been 
charged  before  this  Presbytery  with  accepting  a  call  to  a  pastoral  charge  in 
connexion  with  an  association  of  men  under  deposition  by 'he  Associate  Churchy 
and  thereby  abandoning  his  profession  and  violating  his  vows  at  licensure,  and 
whereas  he  was  cited  to  appear  before  Presbytery  to  answer  on  said  charge,- 
and  not  appearing,  was  again  cited  with  certification  to  appear  at  this  meetings 
Whereas,  he  has  not  obeyed  the  latter  citation,  and  has  added  to  the  matter' 
first  charged  the  receiving  of  ordination  at  the  hands  of  the  deposed  Irethren 
who  are  in  a  state  of  suspension  from  the  Associate  SyriDcl  of  North  America 
and  moreover  a  contemptuous  cummunication  to  this  Presbytery,  and  whereas 
there  appears  abundant  and  indubitable  evidence  of  the  truth  of  the  whole 
charges.  It  is  resolved  that  he  be  now,  and  he,  David  Bullions,  hereby  is  de^- 
prived  of  his  license,  and  suspended  from  the  communion  of  the  church,  until' 
he  return  to  his  duty  and  give  evidence  of  repentance. 

Extracted  by  A.  ANDERSON. 

Exhibit  "  A"  before  Luther  J.  Howe,  Examiner  in  Chancery. 

I  certify  that  the  foregoing  is  a  true  copy  of  an  Exhibit  made  by  Abrans* 
Anderson  on  his  examination  before  me,  and  referred  to  in  his  testimony  as^ 
•"  Exhibit  A"  of  the  Complainants  before  Luther  J.  How,  Examiner. 

August  2,  1843.  LUTHER  J.  HOWE,  Examiner  in  Chancery.- 


I  .^  1>  E  J!K:  . 


Pag». 

Original  Bill-,         .......         ^         •-.         -  3 

Supplemental  Bill, ...-  17 

Answer  and  Demurrer,            -         ^ 36 

Answer,    -----------  o7 

Decision  on  Demurrer  and  cause  at  issu-e,        ..-».-  73 

Complainants'  Evidence, 74 

Deposition  of  Rev.  David  Gordon,            .         t         ^         *         -.         -  74 

do.         "    Rev.  Abraham  Anderson,       ...-.-  106 

do.         "    Rev.  John  G.  Smarts          .         .         .         .         ^         -  138 

do.          "    Mr.  James  Lourie,          .         -         -         w         .         -  152 

do.         "    Mr.  Robert  Kerr,       ..-...-  166 

do.         "    Mr.  John  Bishop,            ......  ,171 

do.         "   Mr.  Patrick  McGill, 173 

do.         "   Mr.  John  Dobbin,  2d.    v 174 

do.         "   Mr.  John  McArthur,  Jr.,    .--■-.-  178 

do.         "    -Mr.  William  I.  Graham,         w         .         -         .         ,  177 

do.         "    Rev.  Thomas  Goodwiliie,            ......  180 

"Commission  and  Direct  Interrogatories,        ....         -  247 

Cross  Interrogatories,     ...------  256 

Deposition  of  Thomas  Beveridge,  D.  D.,     .         .         .         -         -  262 

do.         "    James  Ramsey,  D.  D.>       ♦ 272 

do.         "    James  Martin,  D.  D., 281 

do.         "    Alexander  T.  McGill,         ......  291 

■Rev.  Abraham  Anderson's  Depositioti  before  Judge  Howej  •         -  -293 

Defendants'  Evidence,   ^ 189 

Deposition  of  Rev.  Andrew  Stark, 189 

do.         "   Rev.  Archibald  Why te,  Sen'r.,           ....  ;206 

Complainants'  Exhibits, 211 

Exhibits  A,  B,  and  C, ,         .         .  211 

do.     D,  E,  F,  G,  and  H,        .......  212 

^0.     I, 214 

do.     KandL, 216 

do.     M, 220 

do.     NandO,     -         - 222 

do.     P, 223 

do.     Q,       - 226 

'do.    Il,SandT,     .....'..--         ^  239 

do.     A,  before  Judge  Howe, 294 

defendants'  Exhibits, 246 

Exhibits  A,  B,  C,  D,  E  and  F, 246 

CJommissioners'  Exhibits,  A  and  B,        -        -      .  -        -        -        *  293 


ERRATA. 


Page. 

Folio. 

Line  in  fol 

0. 

74 

6 

7 

instead 

75 

7 

3 

<< 

(1 

13 

1 

ec 

76 

15 

4 

(1 

t( 

19 

5 

ii 

77 

24 

4 

<( 

78 

31 

7 

11 

86 

84 

4 

a 

117 

96 

o 

(C 

120 

112 

5 

<c 

123 

141 

4 

(( 

124 

149 

5 

(f 

126 

164 

4 

u 

133 

211 

2 

(( 

137 

232 

9 

ii 

138 

52 

4 

tc 

169 

19 

1 

l( 

170 

21 

9 

(C 

ct 

23 

1 

(> 

192 

.1 

22 

4 
6 

195 

46 

<( 

1( 

201 

90 

7 

fC 

<c 

92 

5 

t( 

202 

98 

2 

(( 

205 

118 

5 

(( 

3> 

119 

4 

(( 

247 

2 

5 

(> 

250 

17 

7 

It 

i< 

19 

" 

IC 

254 

40 

8 

nsert 

263 

8 

5  instead  of 

264 

12 

3 

« 

267 

32 

10 

(( 

268 

35 

3&4 

i< 

" 

«( 

6 

i( 

271 

55 

4 

('. 

276 

78 

8 

(( 

283 

118 

9 

cl 

285 

130 

6 

>' 

ii 

t( 

7 

(( 

287 

140 

4 

C( 

288 

145 

3 

(( 

<( 

146 

7 

<( 

<( 

149 

1 

(C 

i( 

150 

5 

u 

289 

152 

7     insert 

290 

157 

8  instead  of 

«( 

162 

9  insert 

Page. 

Line 

ERRA' 

213 

13 

from  top 

instea 

a 

12 

"      bottom  " 

216 

1 

"      top 

" 

224 

1 

"      top 

" 

23S 

11 

"      top 

u 

238 

15 

"      bottom  " 

of"  ovidenca  over-ruled  "  read  "evidence  received." 

"  on"  read  "  in  " 

"  the  congregation"  road  "  other  congregations." 

"  prepared  "  read  "  purported." 

"  while  "  read  *'  when." 

"  concurred  "  read  "  concur." 

•'  second  "  read  ''  senior." 

"  written  "  read  "  within." 

"  congregation  "  read  "  congregations. " 

'•  declaring  any  "  read  "  declaring  that  he  had  no." 

"  M."  read" Mr." 

"  part  "  read  "  point." 

"  referring  "  road  "  refusing." 

"  sedement  "  read  "  sederunt." 

"court  "  read  "count." 

"  passed  "  read  "  past." 

"  did  there  "  read  "  did  then." 

"  in  words  "  read  "  in  the  same  vvorda." 

"  for  "  read  "  to." 

"  declined  "  read  "  declared." 

"  cause  "  read  "  case." 

"  members  "  read  "  member." 

"  Mr."  read  "  Dr." 

"  the"  read  "  his." 

"  letter  "  read  "  latter." 

"  1872  "  read  "  1782." 

"  Erving  "  read  "  Ewing.'' 

"16lh"  read  "18th." 

"  resolved"  read  "dissolved.'' 

"  not"  after  "  or.  ' 

"  in  would  "  read  "  it  would." 

"  Jno.  D.  Gow"  read"  Jno.  L.  Gow." 

"  with  "  read  "  without." 

"  reposing  minister  "  read"  restoring  ministers." 

"  otfences  "  read  "  offenders." 

"  made  "  read  "  make  " 

"  carried  "  read  "  erred." 

"  William's"  read  "  Wilson's." 

"  E.  Bullions  "  read  "  P.  Bullions." 

"  N.  Pringle  "  read  "  Wm.  Pringle." 

"  E.  Bullions  "  read  "  P.  Bullions." 

"  D.  Ramsay  "read  "  Dr.  Ramsay." 

"  D.  Bullions"  read  "Dr.  Bullions." 

"      "      read  " 

"  their  ''read  "  there'' 

"  cross  "  before  "  Interrogatories." 

"  raemders"  read  "  numbers." 

"  v/hich''  after  "  articles." 


ERRATA  OF  EXHIBITS. 


"'commissioner,"  read  "  commission." 

some"  read  "  to  some." 

this,"    read  "   of  this." 

Shelby,"  read  "  Skellie." 

John  Reid,"  read  "  James  Reid." 

Congregations,"  read  "  Congregation." 


In  the  Index,  for  Page  57,  read  "51.' 

"     "         «'    to  Alexander  T.  McGill,  affix  D.  D 


1    1012  01010  7904 


